add_wiggle_expression

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 a wiggle expression, implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe what this entails—such as whether it modifies existing expressions, requires specific permissions, has side effects on animation, or returns any confirmation. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely alters composition properties.

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 with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a tool definition.

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 of adding an expression (a mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., effects, error conditions), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'frequency' as 'Wiggle frequency (times per second)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage, but it doesn't compensate with context like typical values or interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'amplitude' and 'ampMultiplier' relate).

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') and target ('wiggle expression to a property'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_loop_expression' by specifying 'wiggle' as the expression type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other expression-related tools like 'set_expression' or 'enable_expression'.

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 composition or layer), compare to similar tools (e.g., 'add_loop_expression' or 'set_expression'), or specify use cases (e.g., for animation effects). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.

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