create_text_animator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Add a text animator' without mentioning any side effects, requirements (like needing a compId or layerName), or limitations. It doesn't describe what happens to existing text properties or if the tool modifies layers destructively. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about behavior.

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, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters unsupported by annotations or output schema. It lacks detail on usage, parameters, or outcomes, so the brevity comes at the cost of utility.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, the description needs to provide substantial context. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent without guidance on animator types, required parameters, or behavioral implications. The enum for animatorType is in the schema but not explained.

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 only 40% (four out of ten parameters have descriptions). The description mentions no parameters at all, so it doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 action ('Add a text animator') and the target resource ('text layer'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_text_layer or add_shape_layer by focusing specifically on animators. However, it doesn't mention the variety of animator types available, which is evident from the enum but not in the description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other animation-related tools, no prerequisites (e.g., must have a text layer), and no conditions for using different animator types. The description only states what it does, not when or how to use it appropriately.

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