squash_stretch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that keys land on an inserted carrier bone `ss_<chain[0]>` at the chain base, that the artist's bones and keys are never touched (a strong non-destructiveness guarantee), and that repeated calls multiply. What it doesn't cover: any permission/side-effect or failure behavior is left implicit.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the following sentences lay out the spring profile, volume math, and carrier-bone behavior without padding. It is dense and jargon-heavy, but every sentence 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?

For a complex 11-parameter animation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the mechanism and key-value semantics well but omits usage context, several parameter meanings, and any return/behavioral expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It gives real semantics for `squash` (<1 vs >1), `overshoot`, `volume` (3d vs area transverse formulas), and constrains `chain`/`clip`/`start`, but says nothing about `hz`, `intensity`, `duration`, `event`, or `project`, which remain undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 and resource: volume-preserving squash & stretch applied to any bone chain, keyed into `clip` from `start`. An agent can grasp the operation immediately. It does not, however, distinguish this from plausible siblings like `secondary`, `juice_apply`, or `add_keys`, so it stops 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as `secondary` (also a procedural secondary-motion tool) or `add_keys`. Mechanics are described in depth, but routing guidance is absent, leaving the agent to infer from the mechanism alone.

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