sequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is one PNG per frame and describes actor structure, which is useful. However, it lacks important behavioral details such as how frame count is determined, how pose cycles and paths interact, or whether any side effects (e.g., canvas creation) occur.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It efficiently summarizes the tool's core behavior and output.

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 tool with 7 parameters and nested actor objects, the description is somewhat minimal. It states returns PNG per frame but does not explain how frame count is derived from paths, how the pose cycle interacts with path length, or typical usage scenarios. Still, the high schema coverage partially compensates.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context by explaining actors have 'poses' and 'path' matching the schema, but does not expand on parameters like delay, scale, palette, or background beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Description clearly states 'Animate actors across a scene' with a specific resource and action. It adds actor behavior details (pose cycle, path of positions) and output format. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'animate' or 'animate_scene' despite the similar names.

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 does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar sibling tools. Usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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