oscillate_cel_positions

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'oscillate using a sine wave' but omits crucial details: whether positions are modified in place, how missing cels are handled (despite a schema parameter), or the effect on existing keyframes.

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 single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load the most important details (e.g., required parameters, behavioral constraints). Could be more informative without increasing length.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to explain complex interactions (e.g., how source_frame_index works, what create_missing_cels does) and leaves critical usage ambiguity.

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%, yet the description provides no parameter details. Critical parameters like cycles, phase_deg, amplitude_x/y, source_frame_index, and create_missing_cels are completely unexplained, making correct invocation nearly impossible without external knowledge.

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 action (oscillate) and resource (cel positions) with a specific mathematical method (sine wave). This differentiates it from siblings like tween_cel_positions or offset_cel_positions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tween_cel_positions_eased, offset_cel_positions). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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