ae_morph_size

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it works on the first rectangle/ellipse of a layer, animates Size between two times, and may include easing (implied by 'ease' parameter). However, it does not address edge cases (e.g., missing shape, multiple shapes), or clarify if it modifies existing keyframes or is destructive. With no annotations, the description partially but not fully compensates.

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 two sentences: the first explains the core concept and use case, the second specifies the keyframing action. No redundant or irrelevant information; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and key parameters but lacks details on timing parameters (startTime, endTime, ease), the role of 'comp', and potential side effects. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for correct usage.

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 description adds meaning to 'to' and 'from' parameters as [width, height] pairs and mentions that 'from' defaults to current value. It also hints at the 'constrain proportions OFF' behavior, which relates to independent axis sizing. However, schema coverage is only 43%, and the description does not explain 'comp', 'startTime', 'endTime', or 'ease' beyond their names and defaults.

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 animates a shape's Size on one axis independently, using the 'constrain proportions OFF' trick. It specifies the resource (shape's first rectangle/ellipse Size) and the action (keyframing between two times), distinguishing it from siblings like ae_animate_transform that animate Transform properties.

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 a concrete use case ('so a moving button can look like it physically stretches a background frame') and implies use for non-uniform shape size animation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like ae_animate_transform for size changes, so it lacks full guidance.

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