offset_cel_positions

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, reversibility, behavior on empty cels) or coordinate system details, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.

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 with a clear header and parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for parsing, though the parameter details add length without deep insight.

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 complexity of a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks essential behavioral context (e.g., error handling, effect on existing positions, coordinate origin). It covers 'what' but not 'how' or 'edge cases'.

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 add value. It clarifies 'start_frame' and 'end_frame' are 1-based and inclusive, and dx/dy are in pixels. However, it mostly repeats parameter names without additional constraints or examples, providing moderate improvement over the schema alone.

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 verb 'offset' and resource 'cel positions' with specific parameters for delta and frame range. It distinguishes from siblings like 'oscillate_cel_positions' and 'tween_cel_positions' by specifying a constant offset over a range, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 like 'set_cel_position' or 'move_region'. No prerequisites or constraints (e.g., valid layer, frame range) are mentioned.

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