oscillate_cel_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key behaviors such as whether cels are created or modified, the effect on existing positions, or the role of parameters like create_missing_cels and source_frame_index. The description only states surface-level functionality.

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 (one sentence) but lacks structure and does not front-load critical information. It is acceptable for a simple tool but would benefit from more detail.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the single-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the sine wave mechanics, parameter ranges, or return behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. However, the description does not explain any parameter purpose, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone. It adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool oscillates cel positions using a sine wave, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_cel_position, tween_cel_positions, and offset_cel_positions by specifying the oscillation behavior.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or context for choosing oscillation over tweening or offsetting.

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