update_property_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. It does usefully disclose that the tool verifies readback after the write, but says nothing about permissions, what happens when no keyframe matches within tolerance, reversibility, or failure modes expected of a mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mutation target comes first and the readback verification trails as a secondary clause. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains the clip/component/property identifier resolution, the meaning of time_reference or tolerance_seconds, or how it interacts with the sibling interpolation tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description only restates the value and optional interpolation mode, adding nothing about time_reference semantics, the tolerance-based keyframe matching, or the clip identifier alternatives.

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 ('Update the value ... of an existing keyframe on a clip property') plus an extra behavior (verify readback). The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from add_property_keyframe and remove_property_keyframe, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as add_property_keyframe for new keyframes or set_keyframe_interpolation_when_supported for interpolation-only changes. The overlap with the interpolation sibling is left for the agent to resolve on its own.

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