set_spatial_tangent

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. It implies a write operation ('Set') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are destructive to existing tangents, error conditions, or what happens if parameters are invalid. 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 (permissions, side effects), usage guidance, and any indication of what happens after setting tangents. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in operational understanding.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond implying tangents relate to 'motion path', which is already suggested by parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 spatial tangents') and the target ('for position keyframes (motion path)'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_keyframe_interpolation_type' or 'set_keyframe_velocity' that might also affect keyframe behavior, preventing a perfect score.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't mention when spatial tangents should be set (e.g., for smooth motion paths) or refer to related tools for other keyframe adjustments, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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