animate_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavior: each preset becomes its own action/clip (a state-creating side effect). However, it omits anything about overwriting existing actions, naming/return behavior, or prerequisites, which is thin for a 12-parameter tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the useful 'preset becomes its own action (clip)' detail. No filler, though the phrase 'based on the principles of animation' is somewhat marketing-flavored.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains none of the parameter interplay (ease, amount, duration, overshoot), the rig_prop bone targeting, or what the generated clip looks like, leaving major gaps.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — it never mentions axis, bone, ease, amount, overshoot, or anticipation. It leaves half the parameters potentially undocumented in both places, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 conveys a specific purpose: applying animation-principle-driven preset motions to props (lid, door, drawer, lever, fan, pickup), and notes the output is a clip. It implies a preset-based shortcut but never names the `animate` sibling or contrasts preset-driven work with manual animation.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'the quickest way to a lively lid, door...' which suggests using this for fast, ready-made motions. There is no explicit when-to-use vs the `animate` sibling and no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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