anim_set_key

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: rotation is Euler degrees, relative=true adds to current value, and the critical limitation that Euler rotation cannot interpolate past 180° (causing snapping). This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 bilingual and somewhat longer due to repetition, but every sentence carries meaning. The primary action is front-loaded, and the Euler warning is placed at the end where it is easy to notice. No filler or tautological phrasing; the length is justified by the complexity.

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 parameters, full schema coverage, and destructive annotations, the description covers the key contextual aspects: property types, rotation units, relative semantics, and a critical pitfall. It lacks explicit mention of overwriting behavior or error conditions, but these are partially implied by the destructive annotation and not essential given the schema details.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter meaning ('rotation as Euler angles in degrees', 'relative=true adds to current value'), but does not add information beyond what the schema already states. It does not introduce new details about value formats or frame handling beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Write one keyframe for a property (position / rotation / scale, or any named property) at a given frame.' It is specific about the verb (write) and resource (keyframe on a property). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like anim_set_keys, but the singular 'one keyframe' and property focus are sufficiently distinct.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as anim_set_keys or anim_delete_keys. The Euler rotation warning suggests using Quaternion/TCB controllers for large rotations, but that is about controller selection, not tool selection. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are provided.

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