cavalry_magic_easing

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as mutation, destructiveness, or side effects. It only says 'Apply' without stating whether this modifies existing keyframe data, replaces easing, or requires specific conditions. The list of easing types adds some context, but key safety and behavior details are absent.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action, the second lists supported easing types. Every word is purposeful, and the key action is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description must carry more weight. It covers the core purpose and parameter domains, but lacks behavior details (e.g., whether it mutates, requires existing keyframes, or returns anything). The schema fills parameter semantics, but contextual gaps remain for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating all accepted easing types, which effectively provides an enum-like set for the easingType parameter. This is helpful beyond the schema's generic 'Easing type' description.

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 states a specific action ('Apply Magic Easing') on a specific resource ('keyframed attribute'), and the list of easing types clarifies the tool's distinct functionality. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cavalry_set_attribute or cavalry_keyframe.

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?

Usage context is implied through 'keyframed attribute' — the tool is meant for keyframed properties — but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention whether an existing keyframe is required or how it interacts with other tools.

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