Text Reveal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior (per-unit duration/stagger timing, mask clipping, and that it returns the end time) but says nothing about permissions or reversibility.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core verb front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical and return-value sentence both carry information. Slightly dense but no wasted prose.

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?

It supplies a return value ('end time'), which is valuable since no output schema exists, and explains the animation model. But for an 11-param destructive mutation with no schema docs, several parameters and usage conditions remain unspecified.

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 description coverage over 11 params, the description must compensate, and it does partially: 'unit by unit' maps to by, 'duration', 'stagger', 'mask', 'phase out: hide' to phase, 'rise/drop' to style, and 'slide' to distance. However, ease, order, time, and layer_id are left unexplained.

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+resource ('Reveal ... a text layer unit by unit') and names the underlying mechanism (text animator + expression selector). An agent can tell it apart from set_text or get_text, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 statement of when to use this vs alternatives like animate, stagger, or transition. Usage is only implied through the mechanic description; no prerequisites and no exclusions are given.

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