Ase Tween Cel Positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose easing options, create_missing cloning behavior, and layer None semantics, which are genuinely useful. However, it omits whether existing positions are overwritten, what happens when create_missing=false, or any destructive consequences of the tween.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, easing options, missing-cels behavior, and layer default all get compact treatment.

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 key behaviors but leaves out operational details like overwrite semantics, edge cases with reversed frame ranges, and potential prerequisites for sprite/layer state. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but the given context is still thin for a 10-parameter mutable operation with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to easing, create_missing, and layer (the null default). Coordinate and frame parameters remain self-explanatory from their names, and sprite_path is clear, but some nuances like coordinate units or frame ordering are not addressed.

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 a specific verb ('Tween') with a specific resource ('a cel's position') and scope ('across a frame range'), plus relevant use cases. Though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the focus on interpolating positions over frames is distinct from single-frame or oscillating cel tools.

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 user-facing contexts (movement arcs, attacks, slides) that imply when the tool is useful, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternative tools. The frame-range behavior differentiates it from single-frame cel tools, but that distinction is implicit rather than stated.

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