apply_keyframes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'raw keyframe tracks' and 'lower-level', but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, error behavior, or the fact that it is a mutation operation. The description is insufficient for understanding behavior beyond the basic function.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and differentiation. Every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has nested parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too brief to cover return values, error contexts, or validation constraints (e.g., minItems, required fields). It does not mention that 'baseValue' is optional or the default type behavior. For a moderately complex tool, the description is incomplete.

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 low (33%) and the description only adds 'Provide one or more property tracks directly', which clarifies that tracks can be multiple. It does not explain the significance of 'nodeId', 'duration', or the structure of 'baseValue' and 'keyframes' beyond what is in the schema. The description does not compensate adequately for the schema gaps.

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 'apply', the resource 'raw keyframe tracks to a node', and distinguishes itself from templates by noting 'lower-level than templates'. It also specifies 'Provide one or more property tracks directly', which further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 context by contrasting with templates ('lower-level'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'apply_animation_style' or 'apply_motion_template'. It lacks explicit 'when to use' and 'when not to use' guidance.

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