Generate Motion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by revealing behavioral traits: outputs are 'grounded in the animation-craft rules', 'deterministic', and 'ready-to-paste real code'. This adds meaningful expectations about output style and constraints.

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 information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then enumerates deliverable components, target stacks, constraints, and output properties. Every phrase contributes meaning; the only minor issue is that the long sentence could have been split for readability.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by detailing what is generated (tokens and animations), which stacks are supported, and the craft rules that shape the output. It doesn't explicitly describe the response format or how 'all' values expand, but for a simple two-parameter generator, the essential information is present.

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% with enum descriptions for both parameters, providing a solid baseline. The description adds value by mapping animation names to concrete output types (fade-in, slide-up, scale-in, spring-pop, shimmer) and explaining that easing tokens are delivered as cubic-beziers with specific variants (decelerate/accelerate/standard/spring), which is not present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and clearly identifies the resource: a motion system composed of easing tokens, duration tokens, and ready-to-paste keyframe animations. The enumerated target stacks (CSS, Framer Motion, SwiftUI) and animation names distinguish it from sibling tools like generate_design_tokens or generate_color_system.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when a motion system, easing/duration tokens, or keyframe animations in supported stacks are needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the purpose is stated concretely enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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