Animate

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/write, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: keys derive from current values, exits accelerate, springs become expressions, timing defaults, and how push/drift land and run. It does not explicitly state which existing keyframes get overwritten, which is a notable gap for a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and dense with genuinely load-bearing detail (defaults, timing rules, stagger). However it reads as a single semicolon-chained block without structure, which hurts scanability even though little is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is largely complete on moves, styles, defaults, and timing. It leaves order/phase semantics unaddressed and never states the destructive consequence (overwriting existing layer animation), which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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?

With only 9% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and delivers: per-move meanings, style options with defaults (snappy, smooth, spring, bounce, linear), direction default (up), amount default (4%), distance default (2% of comp height), time default (in point / out point - duration), and stagger semantics. This far exceeds what the bare schema provides; only order and phase are undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (animate) and resource (layers) plus the exact mechanism — keying a named move from current values. The enumeration of the eight moves (fade, pop, grow, slide, drop, spin, push, drift) makes it unmistakably distinct from siblings like set_keyframes, transition, or stagger.

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?

Usage is only implied through the behavioral mechanics; there is no explicit 'use this when' or routing to alternatives such as stagger, transition, text_reveal, or copy_animation, which all overlap in the motion domain. An agent can infer intent but must guess when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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