add_keyframe

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

It transparently notes that only stored parameter data is verified, not render/playback outcomes, which adds important behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations exists; the mutation is consistent with readOnlyHint false.

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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured. It packs essential information—action, resource, and scope—without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify what the 'read back' returns (e.g., the keyframe value, success flag, or error details). It also omits potential side effects or failure modes, leaving some context incomplete for agent decision-making.

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?

The schema already provides clear descriptions for all five parameters (node_id, effect_name, property_name, time_seconds, value), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further semantic details, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool adds a keyframe to an effect property and reads it back, with a specific verb ('add and read back') and resource ('effect property'). It also clarifies the scope by limiting verification to stored parameter data, distinguishing it from render/playback checks.

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 implies when to use this tool (to add and verify keyframe data) and hints at limitations (render/playback verification is host-dependent). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_keyframes or set_effect_property, so some inference is required.

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