create_text_animator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the layer in place, whether it is destructive, or if any permissions or state dependencies exist (e.g., requires a selected layer or active composition). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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, which is concise, but it is overly terse for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations. It would benefit from additional context or breaking down key aspects.

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 (10 parameters, 40% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after adding an animator, return values, or side effects. Important context such as whether the animator is appended to existing ones or replaces them 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 description coverage is only 40%, meaning more than half of the parameters (delay, duration, endValue, layerName, startTime, layerIndex, compId, compName) have no description in the schema. The tool description does not compensate; it only mentions 'text animator' without explaining any parameter meanings or usage. The baseline for low coverage is higher, but the description fails to add value.

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 'Add a text animator to a text layer' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (text layer), but does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'set_keyframe' or 'apply_effect' that might also manipulate animations. It is specific enough but lacks differentiation.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring a text layer to exist or that the animator is applied to an existing layer. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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