animate_time_remap

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 mentions that the tool 'automatically enables time remapping', which is useful context, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema).

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 a tool that modifies layer animation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain keyframe formatting or time units). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('Set time remap keyframes') and target ('for a layer'), with the additional detail that it 'automatically enables time remapping'. This provides a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_time_remapping' (which might be a more general version).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to similar tools like 'set_time_remapping' from the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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