set_smart_animate_reaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Create or replace' implying mutation, and 'there is no per-property keyframe API' is a useful constraint. However, it omits critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, how it interacts with existing reactions (e.g., does it overwrite?), and what happens on success/failure. For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds a useful constraint about Smart Animate's interpolation model. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity given complexity.

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 13 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain required parameters, how the 'match' object works, what navigation types do, or how replaceExisting behaves. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without external documentation.

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% with 13 parameters, many with nested objects and enums. The description only vaguely mentions 'easing/preset overrides' and does not explain any parameter semantics, required fields, defaults, or the meaning of options like navigation, triggerType, or the match object. The schema itself is complex but lacks descriptions. The description fails to compensate.

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 verb+resource: 'Create or replace a node-to-node prototype reaction using Smart Animate, with optional easing/preset overrides.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_transition_reaction or set_reactions by focusing on Smart Animate and node-to-node reactions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from set_reactions or upsert_reaction, which might also create reactions. Still, the Smart Animate specificity is strong.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_reactions, upsert_reaction, or set_transition_reaction. The description only explains what Smart Animate is, not when to choose this tool over others. No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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