spine_set_bone_keyframe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key behaviors such as whether existing keyframes are overwritten or merged, side effects on other keyframes, or any authorization requirements. The minimal description leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise sentence in Chinese, which efficiently conveys the core action. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or separation of key aspects, and is too brief for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, the dryRun mode, error handling, or the expectedHash parameter, leaving many usability gaps.

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 only 10%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details beyond the tool's general purpose. Parameters like timeline, value, curve, dryRun, and expectedHash are not explained in the description, failing to compensate for the sparse 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 explicitly states the tool inserts or updates rotate/translate/scale/shear keyframes for existing bones in existing animations, clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spine_apply_pose_keyframes, which apply poses rather than individual keyframe manipulation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Prerequisites (e.g., animation and bone must exist) are implied but not stated, and no exclusion or when-not-to-use information is given.

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