animate_location

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), but the description adds no context about side effects, such as whether existing keyframes are overwritten, or how the animation is applied. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description fails to provide additional behavioral insight.

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 short sentence, efficient in length but lacking substance. It is not as terse as a tautology, but for a tool with six parameters and potential side effects, it under-specifies rather than being appropriately concise.

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's complexity (six parameters, mutation, destructive hint) and the presence of many sibling animation tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain key aspects like keyframe insertion, interpolation behavior, or how it differs from generic keyframe tools. The output schema exists but is not shown; the description alone is insufficient.

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 does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings. Terms like 'A to B' and 'between two frames' vaguely map to start_loc/end_loc and start_frame/end_frame, but there is no clarification of formats, units, or the interpolation parameter. The description adds negligible value for parameter understanding.

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 tool animates an object from point A to point B across two frames, indicating it handles location animation. It is specific about the resource (object location) and the verb (animate), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like animate_rotation or animate_scale, though those involve different properties.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as animate_rotation, animate_scale, or keyframe_animation. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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