scale_keyframe_timing

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 'stretch or compress animation' which implies mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this operation is destructive to existing keyframes, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. 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 sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 complexity (mutation of keyframe timing with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain propertyPath format or anchorTime behavior). 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 ('scale') and target ('timing of keyframes'), with the parenthetical clarifying it stretches or compresses animation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'offset_keyframes' or 'reverse_keyframes' by focusing on timing scaling. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'animate_time_remap' that might have overlapping functionality.

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. With many sibling tools for animation manipulation (e.g., 'offset_keyframes', 'reverse_keyframes', 'animate_time_remap'), there is no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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