propagate_cels

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states the core operation but omits critical details such as whether existing cels in the target range are overwritten (the 'replace' parameter is not explained), whether empty cels are copied, or any side effects. The description is a bare statement of action without behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, and every word contributes to meaning. It is appropriately concise for a tool of this complexity.

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 6 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically under-specified. It does not explain parameter semantics, behavior on existing cels, error conditions, or the expected outcome. An agent would lack sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It only implicitly references source_frame and the frame range, but does not clarify filename, layer_names, or the replace flag. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's field names, leaving most parameters underdocumented.

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 action (copy), the resource (selected layer cels), the source (one source frame), and the target (a frame range). It is specific and differentiates from copy_cel (which copies a single cel) and propagate_frame_to_range (which likely copies whole frames) by focusing on selected layer cels. The verb-resource-scope structure is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_cel, copy_frame, or propagate_frame_to_range. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer the intended use case from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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