stitch_animation_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output artifact and the required clip dict shape, including the meaning of 'name' and 'path'. It does not mention overwrite behavior, validation failures, or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by a compact list of required clip fields and an Args section. It is well structured and mostly economical, though the clip field list is slightly redundant with the clips parameter description.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description covers both inputs and the expected output artifact clearly. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required here. The main missing context is explicit usage scenarios and error behavior, but an agent can construct a correct call from the provided information.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: output_res_path is an absolute filesystem path for the output file, and clips is a list of dicts with name and path keys. Concrete examples for path values add useful meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: generate a master AnimationLibrary .tres file that references external animation clips. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the animation-related sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate them.

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 intended use is implied by the description: create an animation library that stitches clips into a centralized .tres file. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites.

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