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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's output categories and the effect of the 'direction' parameter (palette-filled shader code), but does not describe return format, whether multiple results are returned, or any limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient paragraph packed with illustrative examples. It starts with the core value proposition and ends with usage instructions with no filler. The list of recipe types is long but necessary to convey scope.

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 (multiple types of motion, shader pieces) and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what is provided, how to request, and how direction affects output. It lacks a mention of output format but does enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by semantically tying the parameters to usage: 'Request by ids' (ids), 'describe what you need' (query), and 'pass direction for palette-filled shader code' (direction). It adds examples that enrich the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Production-ready motion for any stack' with detailed examples of recipe types (CSS/vanilla-JS) and shader pieces (WebGL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on motion recipes, not generic components or sections.

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 usage context: 'Request by ids or describe what you need; pass direction for palette-filled shader code.' This tells the user how to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though its unique motion-focused purpose makes it distinct.

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