Auto-animate slides

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the crucial destructive detail that it 'Replaces those slides' animations', which an agent must know before invoking. It stops short of stating whether the change is persisted to the .glide.json file immediately or whether it is undoable, which would be the remaining behavioral question for a mutating tool.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and with the destructive 'Replaces' note before the hand-off to `animate`. The enumeration of animation effects is slightly decorative but does communicate the resulting behavior, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers what the tool does, what it overwrites, and where to go for the complementary animation type — everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly. Absence of return-value detail is acceptable since no output schema exists and the effect is a mutation.

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 `path` and `steps` are already fully documented (including the 1-based and default-all semantics). The description only implicitly references `steps` via 'those slides' and does not add format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Gives slides a polished entrance cascade') and enumerates the concrete effects applied (titles focus, text rises, numbers count up, icons pop, pictures zoom), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It also names the adjacent tool `animate` for emphasis animations, distinguishing it from that 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?

The description makes clear this is the bulk/project-wide animation pass ('reading order', default all slides) and routes key-moment emphasis to `animate`. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g. versus `clear_animations` or `set_transitions`), but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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