animate_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input constraints and implies the output is an animated .glb, but it does not mention important behaviors like asynchronous processing, authentication needs, or whether the tool is destructive. The description adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and then provides specific parameter details. 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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on return format, asynchronous behavior, and the role of rig_task_id. The context of sibling tools suggests async execution but is not explained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains action_id (with examples) and fps (with supported values), but it does not explain rig_task_id (a required parameter) or timeout. This leaves half of the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 applies a motion to a rigged model to produce an animated .glb file. It specifies the action_id parameter with examples from Meshy's library and fps constraints, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like animate_to_bottube by mentioning the output format.

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 some usage guidance by enumerating valid action_ids and fps values, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rig_model or animate_to_bottube. It lacks when-not scenarios and prerequisites such as requiring a previously rigged model.

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