Statonic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it creates animations ('Creates smooth zoom in/out effects'), specifies interpolation method ('The zoom animation interpolates linearly between keyframes'), and clarifies timing ('Keyframes are relative to the segment's start time'). This covers essential aspects like mutation effects and operational details, though it could mention potential side effects like file modifications.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by illustrative examples and technical details. Every sentence earns its place by enhancing understanding without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (adding animations with keyframes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, how it behaves, and provides usage examples. However, it lacks details on output (e.g., what is returned after adding keyframes) and error handling, which could improve completeness for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (path, segment_id, keyframes) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as clarifying scale values in examples (e.g., '1.2 = 20% zoom in'), but does not provide significant additional semantics. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('add scale/zoom animation keyframes') and resources ('to a video segment'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_text_segment' or 'update_segment' by focusing on zoom effects. It explicitly mentions creating 'smooth zoom in/out effects,' which is distinct from other tools that handle text, analysis, or deletion.

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 clear context through examples (e.g., 'zoom in 20% for the hook'), implying usage for adding zoom animations to video segments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'update_segment' for other modifications, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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