add_text_animator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds an animator but doesn't explain what that entails—whether it modifies existing layers, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that likely involves mutation (adding animation), this is a significant gap in transparency, as it doesn't clarify behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This level of conciseness is ideal for a tool description, assuming other dimensions are adequately addressed elsewhere.

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 the complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output, or usage context, leaving gaps in understanding how to invoke it effectively. For a tool that likely performs mutations in a creative software context, more detail is needed to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 schema description coverage is 80%, meaning most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool animates 'individual characters', which loosely relates to the 'selector' parameter's 'basedOn' enum (e.g., 'characters'), but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Add a text animator') and the target ('to animate individual characters'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other text-related tools like 'add_text_layer' or 'modify_text_properties'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might also involve animation, such as 'add_wiggle_expression' or 'apply_animation_preset', leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a text layer first), exclusions, or comparisons to other animation tools in the sibling list, such as 'add_wiggle_expression' or 'apply_animation_preset'. This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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