generate_animation

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context that it returns a durable job immediately, implying asynchronous execution, but it does not explain job lifecycle, side effects, or what the durable job reference enables.

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 efficient sentence with the generation action front-loaded. 'Transparent presets' is somewhat unclear, but there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a complex generation tool with many nested brief options, the description is too sparse about when to use it relative to siblings and how its parameters behave.

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 for the top-level brief and start_from parameters. It only mentions a 'plain-language brief' and 'presets,' without clarifying the many brief fields such as model, quality, candidates, beats, duration, or the pose-reference option.

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 gives a specific verb and object with 'Generate from a plain-language brief,' indicating animation generation from a brief. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like generate_motion, plan_animation, or revise_animation, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus generate_motion, plan_animation, or revise_animation. The phrase 'transparent presets' is too vague to serve as usage guidance.

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