clear_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the effect (remove all animation data) and confirms a return value, but does not specify whether this deletes keyframes, drivers, or actions, nor if the operation is reversible. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a destructive action.

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 very short and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently covers the argument and return value in two lines. However, for a one-parameter tool, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating args and returns clearly), but overall it is concise and to the point.

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 simplicity, the description is incomplete. It omits error scenarios, the exact scope of animation data cleared (e.g., f-curves vs. drivers), and the structure of the confirmation dict. For a destructive operation, more context on what is removed and any side effects is expected.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema: 'object_name: Name of the object.' is essentially a tautology of the parameter title. It does not clarify naming conventions, format, or source (e.g., Blender object name). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the specific verb 'remove' and clearly states the resource 'all animation data from an object'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with individual keyframes or animation paths, such as delete_keyframe or create_animation_path.

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 like delete_keyframe for selective removal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must have animation) or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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