animateObject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool animates properties to target values with support for transforms and material effects, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether animations are interruptible, if they persist across scene changes, permission requirements, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by specific examples in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place by directly supporting tool understanding without redundancy or waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter context but misses behavioral details like animation control, persistence, or error responses. It is adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for advanced scenarios.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the purpose of 'property' with examples (e.g., 'material.* for glow/fade effects') and hinting at 'to' values for different property types, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is adjusted to 4 due to the helpful contextual examples.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('animate') and resources ('object property'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on property animation rather than creation, deletion, or other scene manipulations. It explicitly lists supported property types (transforms and material properties) and visual effects (pulsing glow, fading, color shifts).

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 through examples of supported properties and effects (e.g., 'material.* for glow/fade effects'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stopAnimation' or 'updateObject' for direct property changes. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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