set_temporal_ease

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is destructive (overwrites existing ease settings), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides any feedback on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose ('Set temporal ease') and includes necessary context ('bezier handles for keyframes'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a mutation tool with 6 parameters affecting animation keyframes), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, what happens if parameters are invalid, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies critical animation properties, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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 fully documents all 6 parameters (compId, layerIndex, propertyPath, keyframeIndex, easeIn, easeOut). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify concepts like 'bezier handles' or 'multi-dimensional properties.' 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') and the target ('temporal ease (bezier handles) for keyframes'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'set_keyframe_interpolation_type' or 'set_keyframe_velocity', which also modify keyframe behavior in animation contexts.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing existing keyframes), exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools that might handle related keyframe modifications. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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