Set Component Animation

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, noting that 'The client dashboard will play the animation in real-time' and listing allowed values for entry, hover, and curve. It also provides defaults and ranges, which the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) do not cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose opening, a behavioral note, lists of allowed values, a parameter breakdown, and an example. It is a bit lengthy due to the enumeration of values, but every sentence adds information (defaults, ranges, example) and there is no fluff.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the effect (real-time playback), includes all parameters with types/optionality/defaults, and provides a concrete example. It lacks explicit discussion of side effects like overwriting existing animations, but that is a minor gap given the idempotent hint.

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?

The input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by specifying defaults (duration=0.3, delay=0, curve='easeOut'), explicit ranges (0.1-3.0), and allowed values for entry/hover/curve, which go beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 'Set animation for a component' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like design_update_component by focusing solely on animation. The explicit list of animation entries (fadeUp, fadeIn, etc.) further reinforces the specific purpose.

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 implies usage (set animation for a component) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The real-time playback note gives context, but no explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance is present.

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