revise_animation

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the original job and outputs remain unchanged (reinforcing destructiveHint=false), timing edits do not silently retime existing constraints, and the caller must supply the rewritten action rather than a vague editing instruction. It stops short of saying what submit=true actually does (synchronous vs. queued job, cost) or what the response contains.

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 guiding sentence is front-loaded, followed by three tight clarifications with no filler. Every sentence adds a constraint the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 and annotations cover safety/idempotency, so the description only needs the semantics of revisioning. It covers preservation, non-retiming, and original-output immutability; only the plan-vs-submit mechanics and the remaining revision fields are left unexplained.

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 carries the burden. It conveys patch semantics for the revision object (only explicitly changed fields are applied), which is genuinely useful, but it never explains submit, clear_constraints, candidates, quality, seed, or what "the rewritten action" corresponds to in the schema.

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 verb (revise) and resource (an existing animation version) with the key scope note that unmentioned settings are preserved. It does not name the sibling tools (plan_animation, generate_animation) it must be distinguished from, so an agent must infer that this operates on a job_id rather than creating from scratch.

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?

"Plan or submit a new version" implies a dry-run vs. submit mode, which hints at the submit flag, but the description never says when to choose this over plan_animation or generate_animation, nor what preconditions the job_id must satisfy (job must exist, completed, revisionable).

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