create_animated_scene

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the video is procedural and requires no source footage, and it enumerates scene_type options. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it creates a file, or any side effects, leaving the behavior only partially transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action is stated first, followed by the scene_type list and a short usage note. There is no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of parameter and behavior details.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling generator tools, the description leaves important gaps. It does not clarify color formats, duration units, output behavior, or how this tool differs from create_custom_animation or create_moving_object_video. The scene_type list is helpful but insufficient.

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%, and the description only compensates for scene_type by listing allowed values. Parameters like width, height, duration, background, and object_color receive no explanation, leaving units, formats, and meaning implicit.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a procedural animated video completely from scratch.' The scene_type list further clarifies what kind of scene is supported. It does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like create_bouncing_object or create_moving_object_video, so 4 rather than 5.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Useful when the user asks for a simple animated scene without providing source footage.' This gives a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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