set_animation_keyframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the mutation ('insert or replace') and the easing curve, which gives some transparency. However, it does not state prerequisites (e.g., whether the animation/track must exist) or error/side-effect behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the one-sentence description is insufficient for full context. It does not explain how to specify the track (track_index), the accepted types for 'value', or the relationship between node_path and animation, leaving the agent to infer critical invocation details.

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 0%, and the description only partially compensates by mentioning 'time in seconds' and 'easing transition curve,' which map to the time and easing parameters. It does not clarify the semantics of node_path, animation, value, or track_index, leaving most parameters undocumented in prose.

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 ('Insert or replace') and the resource ('a keyframe at a time in seconds on an animation track'), with an additional detail about easing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_animation_track or set_blend_tree_node, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, there is no guidance like 'use this to modify keyframes; to add a track, use add_animation_track instead.'

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