batch_keyframes

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 mentions 'for better performance', which hints at efficiency, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens if keyframes conflict. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and benefit ('for better performance'). It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 (mutating keyframes in a batch), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and performance aspect but doesn't address behavioral traits, prerequisites, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('compId' and 'keyframes') and their nested properties. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'keyframes' or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Set multiple keyframes at once') and the resource ('keyframes'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_keyframe' or 'set_keyframe_advanced' beyond mentioning 'for better performance', which is helpful but not a full distinction.

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 performance is a concern for setting multiple keyframes, suggesting it as an alternative to single keyframe operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'set_keyframe', leaving some ambiguity.

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