clear_animation

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without elaborating on consequences. It does not specify whether keyframes, actions, NLA strips, or other animation-related data are removed, whether the operation is irreversible, or if it affects shape keys. This is a significant omission for a destructive operation.

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, short sentence that communicates the core action efficiently. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, and contains no extraneous information. However, it is slightly underspecified for a destructive operation, which slightly reduces the score from perfect.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the scope of 'animation data' (e.g., keyframes, actions, NLA), potential side effects, or whether the operation can be undone. Although an output schema exists, the core behavioral context necessary for safe invocation is missing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'object_name'. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to rely on its self-explanatory name. While 'object_name' is intuitive, the description should clarify that it identifies the object whose animation is cleared, and whether it expects a name or data reference.

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 a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('all animation data from an object'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_animation or set_preview_range that deal with playback rather than removal. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the primary action.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether an object must be selected, or conditions where clearing animation is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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