Ase Oscillate Cel Positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the subtle relative-offset behavior, the run-once requirement, and the sin/cos axis mapping, all non-obvious traits. It does not explicitly state whether existing cel positions are destructively overwritten, but the 'offsets are applied' wording communicates mutation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the key caveat ('run once per animation pass') and default layer behavior are each given one compact sentence.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and the most important gotchas, and an output schema is present so return-shape documentation is not required. But for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, omitting create_missing, phase_deg, and cycles semantics leaves the definition incomplete for confident configuration.

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. It adds meaning for layer ('None = first image layer'), frame range maps to start_frame/end_frame, and the sin/cos sentence clarifies amplitude_x/amplitude_y. However, cycles, phase_deg, and create_missing are left semantically undefined, which is a clear gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Sine-wave cel motion across a frame range (bobbing, breathing, hovering).' It names the exact behavior (oscillating cel positions) and the axes involved (x=sin, y=cos), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ase_set_cel_position or ase_tween_cel_positions.

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?

Provides clear usage context: offsets are relative to each cel's position at script start, and the tool should 'run once per animation pass.' It also explains the layer default ('layer None = first image layer'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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