Stagger

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful beyond-annotation detail: every key setting (easing, motion-path tangents) is preserved, and it clarifies operation scope (keys, not layers).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and formula, then preservation behavior, then the disambiguation of the nearest alternative. No filler.

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 keyframe-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanic, the preservation guarantee, and the scope limitation. It is only slightly short on the 'order' parameter and on permissions/undo behavior expected of a destructive operation.

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 0% schema coverage the description must carry the parameters. It explains offset_seconds via the i * offset_seconds formula, layer_ids by 'across layers', and path as 'one property', but the 'order' enum (forward/reverse) is never mentioned, leaving a documented gap.

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 gives a specific verb (offset/stagger) and resource (existing keyframes of one property across layers) plus a precise formula, layer i shifted by i * offset_seconds. It also distinguishes itself from whole-layer movement, though it names shift_layers/sequence_layers, which are not in the sibling list, rather than the closer siblings like set_keyframes or edit_keyframes.

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?

It clearly routes the agent: this moves keys, whereas whole layers should use shift_layers / sequence_layers. That explicit when/when-not contrast is strong, but the referenced alternatives are not actual siblings here, so it does little to help the agent choose against the real siblings (set_keyframes, edit_keyframes, copy_animation).

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