add_keyframe

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

The parameter list mentions 'Value(s) to set before keying', which indicates the tool modifies the property value and then inserts a keyframe. However, there is no disclosure of potential side effects, such as handling invalid data paths, overriding existing keyframes, or any error behavior. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but only partially reveals behavior.

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, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a structured parameter list. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-organized for quick parsing.

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 is a straightforward action with no output schema, so not describing return values is acceptable. The parameter list provides enough context for typical usage. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., object existence) or constraints on property paths, which could be useful but are not critical.

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?

Even though the schema has no parameter descriptions, the tool description explicitly explains each parameter: 'Object name', 'Property to key', 'Frame number', and 'Value(s) to set before keying', including the rotation degrees conversion note. This fully covers the semantics of all four parameters.

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 action ('Insert an animation keyframe') and the target ('an object property'), using a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'set_frame' or transform tools, the verb 'insert keyframe' is distinct enough for an agent to identify the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for animating properties over time or that direct value changes without keyframing might be done via other tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage conditions.

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