edit_animation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the edit replaces the original animation or creates a new one, any required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences convey purpose, constraints, and usage guidelines with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 an edit tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details about return values, prerequisites (e.g., needing an animation ID from another tool), and how the edit process works (e.g., overwrites existing frames).

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only minor reinforcement of frame count and size ranges. No additional semantic value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Edit an existing animation sequence' with specific constraints (2-16 frames, 16-256px). It clearly distinguishes from sibling creation tools by naming alternatives (animate_with_text_v2, animate_character).

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 explicit when-to-use ('modify animations you already have') and when-not-to-use ('to create new animations from scratch use...') guidance, directly naming the appropriate sibling tools as alternatives.

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