tween_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: create runs a tween immediately, preset_animation executes instant procedural animations, and generate_code only produces code (doesn't run). It notes that flat op parameters are accepted as a compatibility alias, indicating flexibility in input format. However, it doesn't mention side effects like error handling or whether create affects the scene immediately, though the behavioral descriptions are fairly clear.

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 fairly structured, starting with a high-level summary, then listing Ops with clear headers and bullet-like details. The preset list is efficient and front-loaded with the most common usage. It's longer than ideal but each part adds value; the canonical call shape note is placed at the end, which is less critical. Overall, it's organized and informative without excessive verbosity.

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 (3 ops, many parameters, output schema for code generation), the description is quite complete. It covers what each op does, key parameters, presets, and the call shape. However, it lacks details on error handling, default values beyond what's shown, and edge cases like what happens with invalid node paths. For an agent, this is probably sufficient for correct invocation in typical scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does list parameters for each op and explains preset types, but the details for create and generate_code are minimal—it repeats parameter names without explaining semantics like 'relative' meaning or trans/ease types. For presets, it explains each preset's parameters and effect, which is helpful. Overall, it partially compensates but leaves some meaning to be inferred.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: procedural motion, tween recipes, and tween code generation. It details three operations (create, preset_animation, generate_code) with specific actions and parameters, distinguishing it from animation_manage and animation_tree_manage which likely handle full AnimationPlayer resources. However, it could be more explicit about differentiation from those siblings.

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 explicit contexts for each op: create for simple property tweens, preset_animation for instant animation presets (listing each preset's use case), and generate_code for producing GDScript code. It implies when to use this tool (e.g., for simple tweens) vs animation_manage (full animation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it. The presets list common patterns, giving clear usage guidance.

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