animate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses outputs (PNG frames, spritesheet, timing JSON, GIF) and explains the 'pixelize_first' workflow. However, it does not mention error conditions, performance considerations, or permission requirements.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, output list, and argument list. It is concise and front-loaded, but the argument list could be slightly trimmed if redundant with 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?

Given 14 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and output formats. However, it lacks explicit links to sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'list_motions' for valid motion values) and does not detail the output JSON structure or spritesheet layout.

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 0%, but the description lists each argument with brief explanations (e.g., 'motion: breathe/bob/float..., amplitude: motion strength in px'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw keys and defaults, though some parameter details remain implied (e.g., 'out_dir' auto-created).

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 clearly states it automatically generates procedural loop animation from a static image without additional art, listing outputs and key parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'animate_rig' by implying this tool works directly on images.

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 mentions 'pixelize_first' for converting illustrations before rigging, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'animate_rig' or 'batch_pixelize'. Usage context is implied but not directed.

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