stopAnimation

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 states the tool stops animations, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it halts all animations or just one), error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 (a mutation with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional information.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, failing to explain what it represents (e.g., object ID, animation ID) or how to use it, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 action ('Stop') and target ('any running animation on an object'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'removeBehavior' or 'animateObject', which might also affect animations, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an animation must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'removeBehavior' for broader behavior removal, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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