tween_poses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose real behavior: out_layer is written from first_frame as start drawing + inbetweens + end drawing, deformation is fitted per part, and the return includes per-part fit, bone_stretch, and an onion-skin view. Gaps remain — the `clean` flag (default true) and what happens to pre-existing out_layer content are never explained.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized by topic: rig setup, output framing/ease/extra, then return values. It is dense with long parenthetical asides but nearly every sentence carries technical information an animator needs.

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?

A complex 15-parameter geometry tool with no annotations and no output schema gets a solid explanation of the core rig and output mechanics. However, with 0% schema coverage and roughly half the parameters unexplained, an agent still cannot confidently supply durations, angle_range, clean, or the frame bounds.

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 0% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only explains some: rig_start/rig_end, ease, extra, inbetweens and first_frame get real meaning. durations, angle_range, clean, path, start_frame/end_frame, and start_layer/end_layer are left entirely undocumented by both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: generates in-betweens between two drawn key poses for one character (pose-to-pose). It is clearly distinguishable from rig_preview (it only references its mask syntax) though it never explicitly contrasts itself with animate_rig, another animation-producing sibling.

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 concrete operating context: rig_start/rig_end must share part names and pivots must sit on the same joint in both drawings. It also provides actionable remediation (under 0.4 match = split at the joint or redraw). It stops short of saying when to pick this over animate_rig or other animation tools.

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