blender_key_pose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that all bones plus the object transform are keyed, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about whether existing keyframes at that frame are overwritten, whether the armature must be selected/active, or what the call returns. Adequate but with a clear gap 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?

Two tight sentences: the action and its scope come first, the workflow second. No filler, and both sentences earn their place by adding distinct information.

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 keyframe-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is written and where it sits in the pipeline, which is the core need. It omits overwrite semantics, preconditions, and any confirmation of return value, leaving an agent to guess on details that matter for a repeated write loop.

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%, so the description must compensate for three bare parameters. It explicitly explains `frame` and ties object keying to the `with_object` behavior ('plus the object's location/rotation'), but the `armature` parameter and the boolean's on/off semantics are left implicit. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (keyframe) plus resource (current pose of the armature at a given frame) and the scope of what gets keyed (all bones plus the object's location/rotation). This clearly separates it from siblings like blender_set_pose and blender_pose_aim, which pose rather than record.

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 second sentence gives an explicit workflow: blender_timeline -> blender_pose_aim -> blender_key_pose, repeated per frame, which tells the agent exactly where this tool fits. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., that this is the final step before moving to the next frame), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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