animate_explode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' and 'plan' weakly imply a non-mutating, informational output, but the description never states that it has no side effects, what the plan format is, or whether it requires an existing exploded view. It adds almost no behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no obvious waste, which is structurally fine. But it is under-specified rather than complete, and the word 'simple' is filler that adds no actionable information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is the only source of guidance an agent has, and it supplies essentially none. It does not explain the return artifact, required context, or how the inputs shape the plan, making it inadequate for a 3-parameter tool.

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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (assembly_id, view_id, fps). With both the schema and description silent on parameter meaning and constraints such as which assembly/view must already exist, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Return') and a resource ('explode animation plan'), so the broad purpose is inferable. However, 'simple explode animation plan' is vague about what the plan contains, and it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like create_exploded_view or add_explode_step. That puts it at vague-but-not-tautological.

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., that an assembly_id must already exist), and no mention of alternatives like create_exploded_view. The agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate from the name alone.

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