animate_rig

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

The description details the animation process (attaching parts to bones, keyframing, compositing) and outputs, clarifying it is 'real animation' not procedural. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is valuable, though it omits potential side effects or resource 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 concise first paragraph explaining the concept, followed by a bullet list of outputs and then parameter descriptions. It is slightly long but front-loaded and organized, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the process, outputs, and every parameter. However, it lacks information on return values or error handling, which would be helpful for full contextual completeness.

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?

The description provides comprehensive explanations for all 9 parameters in the 'Args' section, including allowed values (e.g., 'humanoid' for rig, default clip 'walk'). Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds critical meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 the tool's function: rendering frame-by-frame pose animation using a cutout skeletal rig, producing individual PNGs, spritesheet, timing JSON, and loop GIF. It distinguishes from procedural warp, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 built-in rigs (humanoid, biped) and their animations, implying use cases, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'animate' or 'assemble_animation'. Usage guidance is only implicit via the parameter details.

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