motion_set_parameter_value

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a critical safety behavior: refusal to modify keyframed parameters without force=True, and explains the rationale (avoiding silent animation breaks). It does not mention error handling or return behavior, but the output schema covers return values, so this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. The second sentence efficiently conveys a critical exception and an alternative tool without fluff.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, conditional behavior), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and a key behavioral guardrail. It lacks explicit clarification of all parameter roles (especially the difference between 'path' and 'parameter_path'), but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values. Overall, it's complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the core semantic: static value vs keyframed, clarifies the 'force' parameter's default and effect, and provides an example path format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish between 'path' and 'parameter_path', leaving some ambiguity for those parameters.

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 ('set a leaf parameter's static value') with a concrete example path. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to motion_add_keypoint for animated parameters, making the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it refuses keyframed parameters unless force=True, and directly names the alternative tool (motion_add_keypoint) for animated parameters. This gives clear context on when to choose this tool over siblings.

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