animation_sanitize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'optionally apply fixes' and returns JSON, but does not state whether the tool modifies the sprite permanently, what side effects occur, or what 'normalize' entails beyond overlap/frame checks. The parameter 'report_only' hints at behavior but is not explained. Significant gaps.

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 concise, with 4 sentences that front-load the purpose and include example formats. It is efficient but could benefit from clearer separation of description, parameter details, and return value. Still, good conciseness.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'normalization' entails, which fixes are applied, or the full return structure. The agent would need additional documentation to use this tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides examples for layer_frame_ranges and out_of_range_action, and briefly explains ignore_full_canvas_overlaps. However, 12 out of 15 parameters (including required 'filename') are completely unexplained. The agent cannot infer the meaning of most parameters from the description alone.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Normalize animation consistency and optionally apply fixes.' This is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like audit_animation or validate_scene, which also deal with consistency. Slightly vague on what 'consistency' means, but overall clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer this tool over audit_animation or other sibling tools, or what context triggers its use. An agent would have to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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