create_animated_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a video and enumerates animation styles, but it does not describe the output format, return behavior, side effects, or any constraints beyond the animation list. For a creation tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The animation list is useful and compact, though it could be more structured by labeling it as the allowed values for the animation parameter. Overall, there is no irrelevant content.

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 eight parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation. It only covers the animation values and misses parameter semantics, usage context, and output expectations.

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%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It only adds meaning for the animation parameter by listing valid values. The other seven parameters (text, width, height, duration, font_size, background, text_color) are left to their names and defaults, with no explanatory context.

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 creates an animated text video, using a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete animation options, which helps identify the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings like create_text_video or create_typing_text_video.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_text_video or create_typing_text_video. The animation list implies a context of animated text, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios are provided.

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