remove_animation_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation (removing applied styles) and the two modes, but says nothing about undo/reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when appliedId is invalid or absent. Adequate but incomplete for a destructive operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the mode distinction. Zero filler; every clause carries 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?

Covers all three parameters and the branching behavior, which is much of what an agent needs, but with no annotations and no output schema it omits failure modes, undo semantics, and result feedback. Minimum viable for a 3-param 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains appliedId's source (get_motion's animationStyles), the meaning of all:true, and implies nodeId scoping, giving meaning beyond bare field names. It could state the appliedId/all mutual exclusivity and required status more explicitly.

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 and resource ('Remove one applied animation style from a node') with clear scope. The two operating modes (single appliedId vs all:true) are spelled out, so an agent can distinguish this from apply_animation_style or get_motion immediately.

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?

Explains how to obtain the appliedId (read it from get_motion's animationStyles) and the two mutually exclusive modes, giving clear invocation context. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools like apply_animation_style or stating when not to use it.

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