Creates a simple walk or bounce cycle animation for a target object, with configurable cycle length and bounce height.
Create a simple walk/bounce cycle animation.
Args: object_name: Target object. frames_per_cycle: Frames for one full cycle. amplitude: Bounce height.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amplitude | No | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| frames_per_cycle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it creates an animation; it does not state whether existing animation is overwritten, whether keyframes are added to an action, whether the object must have an armature, or what the side effects are on the scene.
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 purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. There is no filler, and the most informative content is front-loaded.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral side effects, prerequisites, whether the cycle is looped or stationary, and how it relates to the scene's frame range or FPS, leaving an agent to guess important execution context.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: 'Target object', 'Frames for one full cycle', and 'Bounce height'. These add real meaning beyond the schema, though units or edge-case behavior are not covered.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a simple walk/bounce cycle animation.' It names the target object and the type of animation, which is enough to distinguish it from turntable or keyframe-only animation tools, though it does not explicitly contrast siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_keyframe, set_interpolation, set_animation_cyclic, or create_turntable_animation. The word 'simple' hints at a low-effort procedural animation, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.