animation_sanitize

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Normalize' and 'repair,' implying mutation, but it does not state whether the file is modified in place, what happens to out-of-range cels, whether it is destructive, or what the return value looks like. This is a critical gap for a tool that clearly alters animation data.

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 with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is severely under-specified and lacks structure – there is no front-loading of key information like side effects or typical invocation context. The brevity is not an asset because it omits essential details.

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 high parameter count (17), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without understanding what each parameter does, what the repair action entails, or what the expected outcome is. This is far below the minimum viable level.

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 0% – the schema provides only types and constraints, no descriptions. The tool description does not mention any of the 17 parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already shows. Parameters like 'out_of_range_action' and 'layer_names' are opaque without context.

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 verb ('Normalize') and resource ('animation cels') and mentions an optional repair action. It distinguishes from siblings like inspect_animation_quality or normalize_sprite by focusing on cels and out-of-range activity, though the exact meaning of 'normalize' is not defined.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which the repair option should be chosen. With 17 parameters and no context, an agent cannot decide when to invoke it.

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