blender_create_animation

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the mutation aspect is partially covered. The description adds context that the animation is procedural and intended for previews, but does not disclose what happens to existing animation data, whether keyframes are created, or what side effects occur beyond that.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence justifies when the tool is useful without redundant detail.

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?

The description gives enough context for basic selection: it is a procedural-animation generator for previewing rig motion. However, it omits what the generated output looks like, whether existing animation is replaced, and what qualifies as 'given objects' when combined with the objects parameter defaulting to selection. These gaps matter for a tool with no output schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 60%, the description has some burden to clarify parameters, but it adds almost no parameter-specific meaning. The phrase 'given objects' echoes the objects parameter, but it does not explain the type enum values or the frames/start_frame semantics beyond what their names imply.

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 and resource: 'Generate a procedural animation on the given objects.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope. It hints at differentiation from 'real animation' workflows by mentioning previews and rig checking, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for previews and for checking that a rig actually moves something before spending time on a real animation.' This is clear usage guidance, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools by name.

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