Animate sub-compositions In/Out

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explicitly states that the tool performs animation transitions and does not change content, and that it accepts multiple targets. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about coordinated transitions and the need to combine with other tools. It could mention if there are rate limits or permission requirements, but overall quite transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a compact argument listing. It front-loads the core purpose and caveats, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, usage context, relationship to other tools, parameter structure, and return format. No gaps are evident for an agent to use this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter structure (app/appToken, targets with subCompositionName/Id and state enum, response_format) but adds little new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does mention the return format '{ success, count }', which is not in the schema (no output schema), providing slight added value.

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: 'trigger animation state transitions to take sub-compositions on or off air'. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_content' and 'update_and_animate' by explicitly noting what it does not do (change content).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'to take sub-compositions on or off air', and when not: 'This does NOT change content — combine with update_content first, or use update_and_animate to do both atomically.' It names alternatives and explains the benefit of multiple targets.

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