tween_cel_opacity_eased

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 core behavior (tween opacity with easing across frames) but omits important details: what opacity range is assumed, what happens if cels are missing (despite a create_missing_cels parameter), what easing functions are available, and the role of source_frame_index. This lack of disclosure makes it harder for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately short for a purpose statement. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, but it earns a 4 for being efficient and front-loaded.

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 has 9 parameters (6 required), no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), return behavior (likely void or success indicator), or side effects (modifies cel opacity on multiple frames). The description alone does not enable correct invocation.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that filename, layer_name, start_frame, end_frame, start_opacity, end_opacity are required, nor what valid values for opacity are (e.g., 0-255 vs 0-100). The optional easing, source_frame_index, and create_missing_cels are not mentioned at all. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'tween' and resource 'cel opacity', and explicitly mentions 'with easing' and 'across a frame range'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tween_cel_positions_eased and tween_cel_scale_eased, and makes the animation intent unmistakable.

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 for animating opacity across frames, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_cel_opacity (immediate) or other tween tools. No when-not examples or conditions are given.

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