animation_sanitize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains some parameters but does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether the sprite is modified by default, or if the tool is read-only). The 'report_only' parameter defaults to false, implying fixes are applied, but this is not clarified. No mention of authorization or other behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It then provides parameter details with format examples. No unnecessary sentences.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover all parameters or explain the overall behavior sufficiently. The return JSON structure is mentioned, but details are missing for correct usage.

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. It explains only three parameters (layer_frame_ranges, out_of_range_action, ignore_full_canvas_overlaps) out of 15, leaving many like 'ensure_layers', 'overlap_pairs', and 'report_only' unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with many parameters.

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 states 'Normalize animation consistency and optionally apply fixes', which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It also mentions returning JSON with summary, layer_stats, alerts, overlaps. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'audit_animation' or 'validate_scene'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or mention any sibling tools for comparison.

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