imgui_stop_animation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (stopping animations) but does not disclose what happens to the animation state (e.g., whether position resets, whether a stopping animation leaves widgets in place, side effects on related widgets). For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is warranted.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loads the key action immediately. The optional-widget behavior is conveyed efficiently in a parenthetical clause. Appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is a simple conditional-action tool with two well-documented params. The description is mostly complete for basic usage. However, given the existence of sibling imgui_stop_all_animations, some clarity on which to choose and behavioral side-effects would improve completeness. No output schema exists, so return value expectations are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both window and widget with descriptions. The tool description adds the conditional meaning ('omit widget to stop all'), which goes slightly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds marginal extra context about widget omission behavior.

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 (stop animations) and the resource (a specific widget or all animations in a window). It differentiates the specific-widget vs all-in-window scope. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling imgui_stop_all_animations, which could be relevant context.

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 implies usage (omit widget to stop all animations in the window), which gives a clear conditional usage pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over imgui_stop_all_animations versus the sibling tool, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., animations must be running via imgui_animate).

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