finish_frame_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the exact artifacts written (frame_XX.png, poses/frame_XX.json), additional files created when frame 7 finishes, and refusal behavior for invalid plans. No contradiction exists with annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, gate, writes, and workflow sequence. The gate is front-loaded and the structure makes the conditions easy to parse.

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 covers the workflow, prerequisites, side-effect files, and animation-name conventions, which is strong for a multi-step file-writing tool. It falls just short of complete because a required parameter (`name`) is still semantically undefined and `output_dir` is not contextualized.

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?

It adds real meaning for animation_name (directory/name prefix), frame_index (the XX in file paths, 0..7), and plan_id (must match the stored plan). However, the required `name` parameter is never explained, and `output_dir` is also left undefined, so with 0% schema coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 action ('lock the current draft frame as final') and target location ('under anims/<animation_name>/'), then details the concrete writes. It also distinguishes finish from its sibling build_frame_animation by framing it as the second half of a build→finish workflow.

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?

Gives explicit gate conditions: refuses without a valid plan.json, requires plan_animation to have run and the summary to have been shown, and requires optional plan_id to match. The closing 'repeat build→finish for frames 0..7' tells the agent exactly when in the pipeline to call this tool.

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