set-effect-keyframe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only says 'set an effect property keyframe' and mentions optional easing controls, but does not disclose whether it creates a new keyframe or modifies an existing one, how it resolves target properties, what errors may occur, or any side effects such as altering existing keyframes. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool with this complexity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and a high-level feature (graph interpolation/easy-ease) compactly. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, but for conciseness and structure it earns a 4.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, multiple targeting strategies, no output schema), the description is far too thin. It does not explain how the tool handles keyframe placement (by time vs. index), how property path resolution works, or what happens when multiple fallback parameters are provided. The schema is rich, but the description adds almost no contextual completeness, leaving the agent with many unanswered operational questions.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all 12 parameters have individual descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely mentions 'graph interpolation and easy-ease controls,' which are already detailed in the keyframeOptions schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Set') and the target resource ('an effect property keyframe'), and mentions optional graph interpolation and easy-ease controls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set-effect-property (which sets a static property value) or setLayerKeyframe (which targets layer-level keyframes). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the effect must already exist) or conditions (e.g., the property must be keyframable). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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