Texte et animateurs de texte

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists actions without mentioning side effects such as overwriting existing keyframes (the 'clear' parameter defaults to true), reversibility, permissions, or impact on existing animators. This is a significant gap for a tool that can mutate properties.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a brief note about the fonts action. Every clause adds value with no redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 11 parameters and three distinct actions, the description lacks high-level guidance on when to use each action, how they relate, and what workflow patterns are expected. It only hints at the fonts action. The schema is exhaustive but provides no narrative, so the agent must piece together the purpose and usage from sparse cues.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds one extra detail: 'action=fonts liste les polices installées', which clarifies the fonts action beyond the generic schema type. However, it doesn't explain the differences between 'set', 'animator', and 'fonts' actions or how to combine them, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 specific verbs and resources: modifier le contenu et la mise en forme d'un calque texte, animer le texte source, et créer des animateurs de texte. It also distinguishes itself from generic animation tools by focusing on text layers and titles, making it clear what this tool is for.

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 for titles and animated typography ('c'est l'outil des titrages et des typographies animées'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ae_animate, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. It gives context but no clear routing.

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