plan_animation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is quite transparent: it states that the tool validates and stores the plan, returns plan_id and user_facing_summary, and sets next_step to 'show summary, then build frames'. It also emphasizes that the agent must author the plan. It does not explicitly mention what happens on validation failure, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear opening directive and bullet points for the plan keys. It is dense but each sentence carries meaningful information. It could be slightly trimmed (e.g., the 'next_step' sentence) but overall it is appropriately concise for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (context signal) and the description explains the return values, plan requirements, and next steps, the tool is contextually complete. It also mentions contrast_with and differing from sibling clips, covering the input semantics for that parameter. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and understand the workflow.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'plan' parameter's structure (required keys like beats, silhouette_story, differs_from, weapon_or_style_notes) and indirectly references contrast_with. However, it leaves the other parameters (name, animation_name, intent, output_dir) unexplained. While some may be self-explanatory, the description does not fully mitigate the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it validates and stores an animation plan, and it is required before generating frames. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_frame_animation by stating that it must be called first and that joint rotations should not be attempted without it. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 usage guidance: it is REQUIRED before any frames, and the agent must author the plan rather than reusing unrelated clips' plans. It also instructs to show the returned user_facing_summary and wait for confirmation before calling build_frame_animation. This effectively tells when to use and when not to.

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