add_build_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the animation's step-by-step nature, mentions it uses UI scripting (implying potential performance or compatibility considerations), and crucially states the permission requirement ('requires Accessibility permissions'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like whether this overrides existing animations or if it's reversible.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by essential context and requirements. Both sentences earn their place: the first explains what the tool does with an example, the second provides critical implementation details. Zero wasted words.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage context, and permission requirements. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or the return format, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema. The permission disclosure partially compensates for missing annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Add a Build In animation'), target resource ('to an element'), and purpose ('so it appears step-by-step') with a concrete example ('e.g. bullets one by one on click'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_bullet_list' or 'add_shape' by focusing on animation rather than content creation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Add a Build In animation to an element') and provides a critical prerequisite ('requires Accessibility permissions'), which is essential guidance for proper invocation. It also implies when not to use it (for static content addition) by contrasting with sibling tools that add content without animation.

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