motion animation create

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

Beyond the annotations (which only indicate read/write/destructive hints), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it does not yet modify a rig, and local joint axes need visual review. This informs the user of side effects and follow-up actions, which is more than the annotations provide.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding only essential caveats. It is concise and well-structured with no redundant information.

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 provides key context about the tool's scope (library, no rig modification) and a caveat (visual review needed). However, it lacks details about return values, error conditions, or how this differs from similar library save tools, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for any of the four parameters, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'preset', 'name', 'duration', or 'intensity'. Since coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing about units, semantics, and relationships.

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 the action ('Create'), the resource ('editable simple animation preset'), and the location ('in the library'). It also distinguishes the tool from rig-modifying operations by explicitly saying 'Does not yet modify a rig.'

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 description gives some usage guidance by noting what the tool does not do (modify a rig) and that local joint axes need visual review afterward. However, it does not name alternative tools for rig modification or for visual review, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool vs. siblings.

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