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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say whether frames/excludes arrays are replaced wholesale (which is what makes it destructive), whether status is constrained, or what happens to omitted fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the mutable fields are listed in a natural reading order. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a nested-schema mutation.

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 destructive mutation with a deeply nested schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and no output schema, the definition should explain replacement semantics, status domain, and the return value. The one-line description leaves all of that to inference.

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%, but the description enumerates the four sub-fields of the nested 'updates' object (name, status, frames, excludes), which is the main comprehension bottleneck for a 2-param tool with heavy nesting. It still gives no meaning for 'status' values, no semantics for what an 'excludes' entry represents, and no explanation of 'animationId' provenance.

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 (update) and resource (animation) plus the mutable fields (name, status, frames, excluded part classes). The verb and resource distinguish it from create_animation, get_animation, and list_animations without ambiguity, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. 'fetch the animation with get_animation first'), and no mention of alternatives or when not to use it. The only signal is the verb 'update', which the agent must infer.

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