anim_bake_range

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation aspect is covered. The description adds the purpose (export survival) and the return value (number of keys written), which is useful context. However, it does not describe what happens to existing keys or other side effects beyond the annotation. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and structured in two sentences (in both Chinese and English). It avoids fluff and every sentence earns its place: first states what it does, second gives usage context and return value.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters, the description covers the main behavior, usage scenario, and return value. The schema already explains all parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It lacks explicit mention of default selections or frame ranges, but those are in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%—every parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description does not mention any parameter details, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('bake') on a specific resource ('entire hierarchy') with explicit scope ('object and all descendants') and outcome ('explicit keys over a frame range'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling anim_bake by emphasizing the hierarchy scope, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives a concrete scenario: 'Bake heavily rigged/constrained characters before export so the animation survives.' This implies the appropriate context and purpose, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like anim_bake or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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