bb_create_animationCreate a new animation in Blockbench by defining its name, loop mode (once, loop, or hold), and length in seconds, with optional selection for editing.
Create a new animation. loop is "once", "loop" or "hold"; length is in seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loop | No | once | |
| name | No | ||
| length | No | ||
| select | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose allowed loop values and that length is in seconds, but it never says whether creation requires an active project, whether the animation is auto-selected, what happens to existing animations, or what the mutation returns. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parameter details are compactly attached, though they are somewhat terse and inline rather than structured, which keeps it just short of ideal.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin for a four-parameter mutation tool. It omits what name and select do, whether a project context is required, and what the call returns, so an agent lacks enough information to invoke this confidently.
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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents two of four parameters: loop’s allowed values ('once', 'loop', 'hold') and length’s unit (seconds). But name and select receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving half the parameters semantically opaque.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new animation.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bb_delete_animation, bb_list_animations, bb_play_animation, and bb_set_animation. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against those alternatives, which is what a 5 would require.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must a project be open?), and no mention of alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over bb_set_animation or bb_add_keyframe. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.