Edit an animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only lists editable fields. It does not say whether the target is an existing animation identifier, whether unspecified fields are left unchanged (important since 0 params are required), whether edits are undoable, or what the response contains.

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 waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specifying rather than optimally concise for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and no required parameters, the description leaves key questions (target identification, partial-update semantics, return behavior) unanswered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'name', 'loop' and 'length' but leaves the 'animation' parameter (presumably the target identifier) undocumented, and gives no valid values for the 'loop' string nor a unit/format for 'length'.

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 (change) and resource (animation) plus the editable fields, which distinguishes it from the create/delete/list/play animation siblings. It is clear but never explicitly names those siblings to confirm the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this versus bb_create_animation, bb_delete_animation, or bb_add_keyframe, and no preconditions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'change'.

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