cavalry_set_keyframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a write operation calling an internal API, and the 'attributes' parameter accepts a dictionary with values. However, it does not disclose important behaviors such as: whether existing keyframes at that frame are overwritten, whether the tool requires an animation context to be active, whether it modifies the project irreversibly, or if there are authorization or project state requirements. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 a single sentence that directly states the purpose and includes the underlying API for transparency. No filler words; every part earns its place. It is front-loaded with the key action and efficiently conveys what the tool does without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description explains the action and references the API, which helps an agent understand the technical context. However, given the complexity of animation keyframing (overwriting behavior, project state dependencies), the description is somewhat thin. It does not explain how the attributes dictionary maps to Cavalry's attribute system, nor does it tell the agent what happens on success/failure. It is adequate for a straightforward tool but could be more complete.

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 100%—all three parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. The description does mention the API call style, but this is redundant with the tool name and schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter semantics, and the description adds no extra clarification.

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 sets an animation keyframe on a layer at a given frame number, and it names the specific API being called. The verb 'Sets' and the resource 'animation keyframe for attributes on a layer' are specific. Among sibling tools like cavalry_set_attributes (which sets attributes without keyframes) and cavalry_set_frame (which moves the current frame), this tool is uniquely about keyframing, but the description does not explicitly distinguish it from those siblings.

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 usage when you want to create keyframe animation, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cavalry_set_attributes (which sets immediate values without keyframes) or cavalry_eval_expression (which might animate differently). It also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., does the layer need to exist? Must the project be loaded?). The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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