Stage Key Set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful traits: same-time keys are replaced, keys are transient until anim_save, failure mode is 'no object', and it emits a 'keyed' event. It stops short of saying whether the key is inserted on the selected object only or how it interacts with the scene parameter.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then mutation semantics, persistence, errors, reply shape and emitted event. The telegraphic style ('Errors: no object') is efficient, though slightly clipped at the cost of readability.

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?

Output schema exists, so the mention of the page reply {name, t, keys} is bonus rather than necessity. But for a write/state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema coverage, leaving the 'scene' and 'name' parameters unexplained is a meaningful gap an agent must fill by inference.

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%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it defines t and its playhead default, but never explains 'name' (presumably object name) or 'scene', which is required and entirely unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: key an object's current Blender world transform at time t, with the page command alias 'key'. It is clear what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like stage_keys_set, stage_key_delete, or stage_key_interp, which an agent must resolve by guesswork.

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?

'Not saved until anim_save' and 'Errors: no object' imply the workflow and a precondition, and the playhead default tells the agent when to omit t. There is still no explicit statement about when to use this versus stage_keys_set for a batch or stage_key_interp for easing.

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