Apply sine-wave position offsets to cels across frames to create oscillation animations. Adjust amplitude, cycles, phase, and create missing cels as needed.
Apply sine-wave position offsets to cels across frames.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cycles | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| end_frame | Yes | ||
| phase_deg | No | ||
| layer_name | Yes | ||
| amplitude_x | No | ||
| amplitude_y | No | ||
| start_frame | Yes | ||
| source_frame_index | No | ||
| create_missing_cels | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says offsets are applied; it does not say whether existing cel positions are mutated in place, whether missing cels can be created, whether the operation is reversible, or what frame/range semantics apply.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise and to the point. However, it is so brief that it leaves almost all functional detail to the schema and misses an opportunity to provide scannable guidance.
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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-line description is severely inadequate. It omits return behavior, side effects, parameter relationships, frame-range handling, and any indication of what happens to existing cels.
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%, and the description must compensate for 10 undocumented parameters. The phrase 'sine-wave position offsets' gives a useful hint for amplitude_x, amplitude_y, cycles, and phase_deg, but it leaves start_frame, end_frame, source_frame_index, and create_missing_cels unexplained.
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 ('apply sine-wave position offsets') and resource ('cels across frames'), giving the tool a distinct identity among siblings like tween_cel_positions and offset_cel_positions. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the waveform language is enough to convey a periodic, animated motion effect.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as offset_cel_positions or tween_cel_positions. The description implies a use case but provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.