Find Animation Actions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation is free, an unfiltered call returns a very long result set, and it documents the return shape including that preview_url is an animated GIF. Only the flag of 'ids that no longer exist are simply absent' (in schema) and pagination behavior are unaddressed.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the identity and cost are front-loaded, the filtering caveat second, and the return shape last. Every sentence earns its place, especially the return-shape line since there is no output schema.

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?

Covers identity, cost, interaction with the sibling that consumes the ids, filter behavior, and the return fields despite no output schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely and correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot: filters combine, and omitting them all returns the entire library. That materially changes how an agent should construct the call.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Look up preset animations') tied to a named sibling: 'the action ids meshy_animate takes'. An agent immediately knows this is the lookup companion to meshy_animate and can distinguish it from the other listing tools.

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?

Gives real usage guidance: 'Filters combine; with none the whole (long) library comes back, so prefer search or category.' It steers the caller toward filtered queries and discloses cost ('Free'). It stops short of explicit when-not/alternative routing, but the context is clear.

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