create_animation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create an animation', implying a creation action but lacking details on side effects (e.g., whether existing animations are overwritten), required permissions, output format, or state changes. The word 'create' suggests a mutation, but no safety or error context is given. This is insufficient for an AI agent to predict behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loads the main action. However, it sacrifices semantic value for brevity; it could be slightly longer to add meaningful guidance without becoming verbose. The structure is fine, but the content is too sparse to fully earn a 5.

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 has 4 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and a moderate complexity (animation generation), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, the expected format of inputs, or what the output contains (even though an output schema exists, the description could still add context). The agent has no clear picture of how to use the tool effectively.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description fails to compensate: it only mentions 'varying a parameter' without explaining what 'expression', 'parameter', 'range_spec', or 'frames' mean. An agent cannot determine how to construct valid inputs from this description alone.

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 the action ('Create an animation') and gives a hint about the mechanism ('by varying a parameter'), which is specific enough to convey the tool's core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from siblings that also involve parameter variation or animation-like outputs, like batch_commands or execute_code. The verb+resource combination is good, but misses a chance to highlight what makes this animation-specific.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools include many computational and animation-related options (e.g., batch_commands, visualisation tools), but the description offers no context for selection. The agent receives zero direction on preconditions, typical use cases, or what distinguishes this from similar tools.

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