create_animation_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the rigging prerequisite and the optional post-processing structure, but omits whether the tool creates an asynchronous task, what it returns, and whether there are permission, cost, or rate-limit concerns.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then documents parameters efficiently. Every sentence carries useful information, and the link for action_id is a helpful addition without bloat.

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 create-task tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description covers the inputs adequately. However, it does not explain the return value or task lifecycle, which an agent would need in order to poll with retrieve_animation_task or stream_animation_task.

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 0%, so the description must document the parameters itself. It successfully explains all three: rig_task_id as a completed rigging task ID, action_id as an animation library identifier with a reference link, and post_process as an optional object with operation_type and fps details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: applying an animation to a rigged character. It implicitly distinguishes from rigging by requiring a completed rigging task, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like retrieve_animation_task or stream_animation_task.

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 gives one important prerequisite: rig_task_id must be from a completed rigging task. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retrieve or stream animation tasks) or mention any exclusions.

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