fx_generate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine side effect ('Each preset fires an event fx_<preset>') and a texture/atlas implication, which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether existing animation content is affected, or what the call returns.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the preset/parameter notes that follow are dense but each adds real information. The parenthetical preset catalog is somewhat run-on, but nothing is pure 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?

With 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain more of the calling surface and expected results. It covers the preset selection and a couple of parameters but leaves the majority of inputs and the outcome of the call undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it with non-default options.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only covers about three: it enumerates valid preset values (valuable since the schema has no enum), explains 'into', and flags that shine_sweep requires 'slot'. The remaining twelve params (x, y, size, color, count, start, behind, parent, project, duration, front_of, intensity) receive no meaning, so most of the surface stays opaque.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add an FX preset') and clarifies it is built from Spine primitives with procedural textures. This is far more informative than a bare name. However, it does not differentiate itself from related siblings like fx_recipe, juice_apply, or ae_fx_to_spine, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 supplies usage-relevant detail for specific parameters ('into: merge into an existing animation', 'shine_sweep needs slot='), which implies when certain options apply. But it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling FX tools (fx_recipe, juice_apply, ae_fx_to_spine), leaving the primary routing decision to inference.

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