set_effect_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the call can silently become a keyframe write depending on property state or the `time` argument. That is a meaningful side-effect warning. It still omits whether the response reports whether a keyframe was created, whether existing keyframes are overwritten, and what error conditions exist.

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?

Two short sentences, the primary action front-loaded and the important conditional immediately after. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core action and its keyframe side effect but leaves gaps: no guidance on value-type matching to property type, no indication of overwrite/reversibility, and no hint of what is returned. The rich schema parameters compensate substantially, keeping this at minimum-viable rather than inadequate.

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, and the description earns a nudge above it by explaining the causal role of the optional `time` parameter in turning a set into a keyframe. It adds no semantics for `value`, `effect`, `property`, or track targeting beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set an effect property") and clarifies the effect/keyframe duality, so an agent can tell it apart from get_effect_property. It stops short of explicitly naming add_keyframe as the alternative for pure keyframe creation, so the differentiation from that sibling is only implied.

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 second sentence gives a real usage rule — supplying `time` or hitting an already-animated property produces a keyframe rather than a static value — which is genuine conditional guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over add_keyframe, set_clip_transform, or get_effect_property, and no prerequisites about resolving track/clip/effect indices first.

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