spine_copy_keyframe_range

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'copy' without explaining side effects like overwriting existing keyframes, how conflicts are handled, or if changes are reversible. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure and fails to provide essential details needed for correct invocation. Conciseness is not prioritized over completeness.

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 complexity (no output schema, no annotations, nested objects, 9 params), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, what happens on success/failure, or the behavior of optional parameters like dryRun or targets.

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?

The input schema has 9 parameters, but only filePath has a description (11% coverage). The description adds no parameter information. The nested objects and enums are undocumented. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'copy' and the resource 'animation clip' (keyframe range) to another animation or same animation at a specified time. It is distinct from sibling tools like spine_clone_animation (entire animation) and spine_delete_keyframe_range. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings in the description text.

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?

No guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or constraints. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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