juice_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: only two inserted bones are animated so the artist's keys are untouched, one-shots end on the setup pose, loops are seamless, and SFX events fire. It also gives intensity range and fx layering behavior, though it omits permissions, reversibility, and return information.

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 dense but front-loads the clip contract and then moves through behavioral details without obvious filler. It could be better structured with bullets, but every sentence conveys domain-specific 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It omits when to use the tool, never defines project, merge, or durations, and gives no sense of return values or overwrite behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains clips, intensity, fx, shine_slot, and the options mappings (back, rows, to, darkness), but leaves project, merge, and durations completely undocumented, which is a significant gap for 8 parameters.

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 'Slot-symbol juice' and then enumerates the exact clip set and the two inserted bones, making the resource and effect scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fx_generate or secondary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer prerequisites or exclusions. It lists clips and options but gives no routing guidance among the many rig/fx siblings.

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