Animate objects on a slide

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description has to do real work — and it does, explaining that animations are added and then played in order during the show, with the exact semantics of on_click/with_previous/after_previous and the edge case of the first animation of a slide. It does not mention what happens on an invalid effect id or that replace discards existing builds.

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 core action, then a compact taxonomy and one edge case, with no filler sentences. The effect-name lists are dense but each earns its place as the accepted value vocabulary.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers what an agent needs to author a call: effect vocabulary, trigger ordering, and slide targeting. The remaining gap is return/confirmation behavior and failure modes, which are minor for this complexity level.

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 75%, so the schema already covers most fields, but the description adds genuine meaning: the effect-family taxonomy (appear/emphasis/disappear with concrete effect names) that must be looked up in `catalog`, and the trigger ordering semantics the enum alone can't convey. It reinforces the step/placement behavior at the object level.

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: 'Adds in-slide animations (builds) to objects', with the synonym 'builds' removed ambiguity. It also implicitly separates itself from auto_animate and clear_animations by making clear this is manual, per-object animation authoring keyed by element id and effect id.

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 explains the playback model (trigger ordering, effects per object, slide placement) but never states when to reach for this tool versus auto_animate, clear_animations, or set_transitions. Usage context is implied rather than routed.

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