Masques

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It lists capabilities but does not disclose side effects such as whether create replaces existing masks, how set behaves on properties, coordinate system details, idempotency, or whether changes are destructive. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with 20 parameters.

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 compact: two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the animation routing hint is placed after the primary capabilities. Every sentence contributes useful context.

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 — 20 parameters, two actions, nested object inputs, no output schema, and no annotations — the description is too short to be complete. It provides a useful overview and one workflow hint, but it omits actionable details about result behavior, property setting semantics, shape coordinate systems, and error conditions.

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 only 35%, so the description must compensate. It maps general concepts like shape, mode, feather, expansion, and opacity, but many critical parameters such as vertices, inTangents, outTangents, center, inverted, locked, and closed remain unexplained. The description does not provide enough parameter-level meaning for an agent to confidently build complex mask operations.

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 action, 'Creer et regler des masques', and details the resource domain: rectangle, ellipse, or free Bezier path, with mode, feather, expansion, and opacity. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like ae_shape or ae_property.

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 the tool is used for creating and adjusting masks, and it gives contextual routing by stating that mask paths are then animated via ae_keyframes on 'masks/Mask 1/Mask Path'. It does not provide exclusions or explicitly compare against alternatives, but the practical workflow guidance is clear.

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