anim_preset_apply

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutability/safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the conceptual framing of applying from a start frame, speed multiples, and cyclic repetition, which is useful. It omits the most consequential behavior — that with the default `replace=true` the figure's existing keys over the covered frames are deleted — which the agent only learns from the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the tool name. It is efficient, though for a seven-parameter mutation tool the terseness shades into under-specification rather than pure concision.

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?

With a rich schema (86% coverage) and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description does not need to re-explain parameters, and there is no output schema to account for. Still, for a destructive-capable, multi-parameter mutation the missing note about overwriting existing keys and any hint of what is returned leaves a real gap.

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 86%, so the schema already carries nearly all parameter meaning (speed = 2x, repeat cycles, replace deletes old keys, in_place drops hip travel). The description's phrases "from a frame on", "at any speed" and "repeated as a cycle" loosely mirror start_frame, speed and repeat but add no detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Applies an animation preset") plus the target ("to a figure") and the operating scope (from a start frame, speed scaling, cycling). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like anim_preset_list or anim_preset_save, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 sentence describes what the operation does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this should be preferred over anim_import or anim_key_pose for bringing animation onto a figure, nor what happens if the figure already has keys.

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