set_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 states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive mutation (likely yes, given 'set'), what permissions are needed, error conditions, or what happens if a keyframe already exists at that time. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 details (e.g., effects, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and output information, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the inputs, but the description doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints.

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 verb 'set' and resource 'keyframe for a layer property', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'set_keyframe_advanced' or 'batch_keyframes', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this simpler version.

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 siblings like 'set_keyframe_advanced' and 'batch_keyframes' available, there's no indication of this tool's scope (e.g., for basic single-keyframe operations) or prerequisites, leaving usage context unclear.

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