manage_animation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists actions without mentioning side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether operations are destructive. For a tool that loads and plays animations, this is a significant gap.

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 that efficiently lists key actions. It is front-loaded with '[PRO]' and the word 'Animation'. While slightly minimal, it contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., a valid Humanoid), and behavioral context. Users cannot assess completeness without inspecting schema further.

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%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: load, play, stop animations, and get animation tracks. It explicitly lists the main actions and the target (humanoid/controller), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_audio or manage_camera.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, sibling tools cover distinct domains, so the usage context is implied. The description lacks guidance on choosing between actions, but the input schema's detailed action descriptions compensate partially.

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