anim_smil_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '추가합니다' (adds) implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if animations persist across sessions, what happens on invalid parameters, or any rate limits. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool that modifies SVG content.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and context. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how the animation integrates with the SVG document. The description provides only basic purpose without the behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, with no additional value from the 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 clearly states the action ('객체에 SMIL 애니메이션을 추가합니다') and specifies the resource ('객체') and technology context ('SVG 내장 애니메이션'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like anim_css_add (CSS animations) and anim_remove (removal), but doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description text itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like anim_css_add or anim_list. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing object), nor does it explain typical use cases for SMIL animations versus other animation methods available in the toolset.

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