tween_cel_opacity_eased

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic action ('tween cel opacity') without disclosing side effects (e.g., modifying existing cels), requirements (e.g., layer must exist), or safety profile. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, given the tool has 9 parameters and no annotations, a slightly expanded but still focused description would be more appropriate. It is not verbose but borders on under-specification.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the tweening process, how easing works, or the effect of parameters like 'create_missing_cels'. The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds no explanation for any of the 9 parameters, relying entirely on parameter names (e.g., 'filename', 'easing'). This is inadequate for an agent to correctly set parameters.

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 action ('Tween') and the resource ('cel opacity') with a specific qualifier ('with easing across a frame range'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like tween_cel_positions and tween_cel_scale_eased, which target different properties.

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 implies the tool is for animating opacity with easing but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Without mentioning related tools or exclusions, the guidance is adequate but not strong.

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