anim_set_interpolation

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds useful scope context: it applies to every key unless frames is specified. It does not mention reversibility, undo behavior, or side effects, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation and scope. The Chinese/English duplication slightly reduces conciseness, but the content is efficient and every substantive point serves a purpose.

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 complete schema documentation and no output schema, the description plus schema provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It identifies the operation, the possible scope (whole track vs frames), and the optional object selection, though it does not go into deeper animation workflow context.

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 the schema already explains type, frames, objects, and property. The description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the verb ('set') and resource ('interpolation tangent type') for every key on a track or specified frames. It distinguishes this tool from animation siblings like anim_set_key, anim_set_controller, and anim_ease by naming the exact operation and scope.

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 when to use it: when an agent needs to change key interpolation tangents on a track or specific frames. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use them, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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