animate_mask_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'animate' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this overwrites existing animations, requires specific layer/mask states, has side effects on composition timing, or returns any confirmation. For a tool with 4 required parameters and complex nested data, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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's appropriately sized for a tool name that already suggests the domain (animation/masking) and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying what gets animated and how.

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 complex animation tool with 4 required parameters (including nested keyframe arrays), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'animate' means in practice, what happens to existing animations, what the tool returns, or how it integrates with the broader animation system. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters and their nested structures. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of keyframe data, or clarify how mask shapes are defined. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 'Animate a mask path with keyframes' clearly states the action (animate) and target (mask path), but it's vague about the specific animation mechanism and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_mask_path' or 'add_mask'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about what type of animation or how it differs from related operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'modify_mask_path' (which might adjust static properties) and 'add_mask' (which creates masks), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this keyframe-based animation tool.

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