GSAP MotionPath

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using MotionPathPlugin but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., library loaded), side effects, or whether the animation is reversible. However, for a simple animation tool, the basic behavior is implied.

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 sentences front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every word adds value; no fluff. The structure is ideal for quick skimming.

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 6 parameters including a complex 'options' object, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain key parameters like 'ease', 'duration', or the structure of 'options', leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly without referring to external documentation.

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 only 33% (2/6 parameters described). The tool description does not compensate: it only alludes to 'target' and 'path' without adding detail, and ignores parameters like 'ease', 'duration', 'options', and 'includeImports'. Users get no extra context for the majority of 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 uses a specific verb ('Animate') and resource ('element along an SVG path or array of points'), clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'gsap_tween' by mentioning curved vs straight-line animation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('for curved movement paths') and when not to, providing an alternative ('use gsap_tween instead'). This is clear and helpful for choosing between related tools.

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