cascadeur_animate_transforms

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and not read-only, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds meaningful behavior: delta rotations reference a pre-edit frame, default 0, and it advises a verify workflow. This clarifies the relative nature of the animation changes beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the key behavioral nuance following immediately. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 a complex nested keyframe schema, two top-level parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how keyframes should be structured, what happens to existing animation, or how interpolation behaves, so an agent would need to inspect the schema and likely cascadeur_inspect_tool to use it safely.

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?

The description clarifies the semantics of rotation_delta_degrees by explaining the pre-edit frame reference and default of 0. However, it adds no explanation for the keyframes structure, interpolation enum, or position/quaternion options, and the schema has minimal top-level property descriptions, leaving the agent partly reliant on nested schema names alone.

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 states a specific action ('Author body and finger animation') on a clear resource, and emphasizes the batch aspect that distinguishes it from single-pose tools like cascadeur_set_pose. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a concrete sense of what the tool accomplishes.

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 use for batch animation and suggests verifying via 'Read poses and render', but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as cascadeur_set_pose or cascadeur_set_keys. The 'batch' wording provides some context, but the when-not guidance is absent.

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