spine_delete_animation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive nature ("Remove") and the scope guarantee that other animations are untouched, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about irreversibility/undo, permissions, or behavior when the named animation doesn't exist — significant gaps for a mutation 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope guarantee. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical use-case could be folded into clearer usage guidance rather than standing alone.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But for a destructive operation with no annotations and zero schema coverage on both required parameters, the description omits too much — parameter meaning, error conditions, and reversibility are all missing.

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 two undocumented required parameters (project, name). It never mentions either parameter or their expected formats, leaving the agent to infer that "name" identifies the animation and "project" the containing project.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove an animation") and scopes it with "Other animations are untouched," which separates it from spine_delete_keyframes and spine_duplicate_animation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the broader spine_delete sibling, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 parenthetical "e.g. before regenerating it" supplies one concrete usage context, which is better than nothing. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to use spine_delete_keyframes instead), so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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