anim_orbit

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'creates' an animation but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing animation is overwritten, if keyframes are added, or if object must be selected). No details on error conditions or post-conditions.

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 followed by a clean argument list. No redundant text. Every line adds value. Ideal structure 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?

The tool has no output schema and 5 parameters. The description adequately covers the parameters and basic purpose but lacks details on return value, error handling, or post-condition effects. For a simple animation tool, this is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the description compensates by listing all 5 parameters with brief explanations. For example, 'center: Center point [x, y, z]' and 'frames: Frames for one complete orbit' add meaning beyond the schema. However, some details are missing (e.g., default center behavior).

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: 'Create an orbital/circular motion animation.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('orbital/circular motion animation'), distinguishing it from siblings like anim_bounce (bounce animation) and other animation tools.

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 (e.g., anim_bounce, keyframe tools). No when-not or prerequisite information provided. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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