anim_offset_keys

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description explicitly states the operation is non-destructive in terms of key values, but shifts timing. It mentions all keys move together, implying uniformity, and implies offset can be negative. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, clarifying the nature of the destructive operation.

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 two sentences (one in Chinese, one in English) with zero redundancy. It front-loads the main action and includes the critical note about all keys moving together. Every word earns its place.

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 that shifts animation keys, the description covers the main operation and parameters. Since there's no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, but that's not critical for a transformation tool. It could mention boundary conditions (e.g., offset beyond frame range) but that's likely handled elsewhere. Adequate for the complexity.

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%, so the schema already describes offset, objects, and property. The description's phrase 'offset frames' adds a tiny bit of context (frames), but it's mostly redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'shift' and the resource 'a whole track in time by offset frames', and explicitly notes that all keys move together. It distinguishes itself from related tools like anim_scale_keys and anim_goto_frame by focusing on time offset.

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 its usage: apply when you need to shift animation keys uniformly in time. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like anim_scale_keys (which scales key timing), but the clarity of 'shift' vs 'scale' makes the choice evident. No explicit when-not guidance is provided, but the context is clear.

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