anim_ease

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it does not disclose key behavioral details such as whether the keyframe must already exist, what happens if the handle value conflicts with the tangent type, or whether existing easing is overwritten. These are significant 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 extremely concise, consisting of two lines (bilingual). It front-loads the action and the key parameters, and every sentence serves a purpose. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool and the rich schema (all params documented), the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits important operational details like the requirement of an existing keyframe and the semantics of handle values relative to tangent types. This could lead to incorrect 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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds a general purpose ('to shape easing') but does not elaborate on the interplay between tangent types and handle values, nor does it clarify the meaning of 'handle' beyond what the schema states. It does not compensate for any missing schema details.

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 verb 'set' and a specific resource: the in/out tangent type of a keyframe at a frame, with optional handle values. It is unambiguous about what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling animation tools like anim_set_interpolation or anim_set_key, though the focus on tangent types makes it distinct enough.

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. It does not mention that this is specifically for easing, nor does it contrast with anim_set_interpolation or other animation tools. The context signal shows many sibling animation tools, but the description gives no routing information.

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