offset_keyframes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Offset keyframes in time' implies mutation (changing keyframe timing) but doesn't disclose whether this is destructive (overwrites timing), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting linked properties), or how errors are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. No structural issues exist—every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, side effects), usage guidance, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotation coverage, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying an 'offset' parameter through the phrase 'in time'. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how compId, layerIndex, and propertyPath identify the target). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Offset keyframes in time' clearly states the action (offset) and target (keyframes) with a specific dimension (time). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scale_keyframe_timing' or 'reverse_keyframes' by focusing on time shifting rather than scaling or reversing. However, it doesn't specify what resource (composition/layer/property) is affected, which the schema reveals.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scale_keyframe_timing' or 'batch_keyframes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing keyframes) or typical use cases (e.g., synchronizing animations). Usage is implied only through the action name.

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