blender_keyframe_object

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide no safety hints (all flags false), so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions that animation is evaluated by Blender Timeline and that cycle adds a cycles modifier, but it does not disclose whether existing keyframes are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether it requires specific object types or selection. The disclosure is incomplete for a mutating operation that inserts keyframes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly two sentences with no filler. The core purpose ('Insert transform and/or Principled emission-strength keyframes') is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about cycle is appended efficiently. Every clause earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, a nested keyframes array, and no output schema or safety annotations, the description is severely insufficient for correct invocation. It does not explain what target_name refers to, the structure of keyframes entries, units for transforms (meters/radians – hinted in schema but not here), the role of interpolation, or behavior on success/failure. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage and the tool's inherent complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% – no property descriptions exist in the schema, so the tool description is the only source for parameter meaning. The description does not explain any of the parameters: target_name, keyframes array structure, frame, location, rotation, scale, emission_strength, cycle, or interpolation. The names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds zero semantic detail, leaving the agent to guess formats, units, or required fields beyond the schema's minimal constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Insert') and names the resource ('transform and/or Principled emission-strength keyframes'), which clearly distinguishes this as an animation tool rather than a static transform tool. It also mentions the cycle modifier behavior, further clarifying its scope. The purpose is immediately apparent and distinct from siblings like blender_transform_object.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_transform_object or other animation tools. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any scenarios where a sibling would be preferred. The only hint is 'cycle adds a cycles modifier when supported,' which is behavioral, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.