Animations pretes a l'emploi et sequencage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a genuinely useful trait: 'Les valeurs sont relatives a l'etat actuel du calque : un slideIn ne detruit pas la position existante' (relative values, non-destructive). But for a mutation-heavy tool it does not disclose keyframe overwrite behavior, reversibility, or what happens to existing animation data beyond that one example.

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?

Three front-loaded clauses with zero filler: main purpose first, then the key behavioral caveat, then a discovery hint. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information appears immediately.

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 29-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a thin description. It covers the core concept, the relative-value behavior, and the action=list escape hatch, but does not describe return behavior, error handling, or how parameters map across the preset, sequence, and apply actions. The action=list hint mitigates but does not close the gap.

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 only ~55%, so the description should compensate for the ~12 undocumented parameters (to, from, amount, angle, distance, reverse, frequency, overshoot, etc.). It adds the core relative-values concept and routes discovery to action=list, but does not clarify what the undocumented parameters mean for specific presets, leaving an agent to guess their roles.

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 ('applique' applies) and resource (ready-made animations: apparitions, sorties, effets de titre) plus a second distinct function (etale des calques dans le temps, staggering layers). It is specific enough to separate from manual-keyframe tools like ae_keyframes, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 clear implicit context of when to use it (one-command presets and layer sequencing), and 'action=list detaille les presets' offers a discovery path. However, it gives no explicit alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no guidance on choosing this over ae_keyframes or ae_effect for the same scenario.

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