blender_animation

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

The description explicitly labels 'clear_animation' as '(destructive)', but the annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction. The annotation system is designed to convey this safety information, and the description contradicts it, which is a serious inconsistency.

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 well-structured with clear category headers and bullet lists, making it navigable for a complex 32-parameter tool. However, it includes an unnecessary 'PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE' paragraph that adds meta-narrative rather than operational guidance, and the overall length is verbose.

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 high complexity (32 parameters, 21 operations), the description provides a comprehensive overview of all operation categories, which is highly useful for orientation. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. Minor gaps remain, such as not describing side effects for baking operations or constraint behaviors, but overall it is complete for a tool of this scale.

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%, with each parameter already thoroughly documented in the input schema (e.g., ranges, defaults, required-for mapping). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond grouping operations by category, which is marginal value, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Comprehensive animation system for Blender supporting keyframes, shape keys, actions, constraints, and baking' and enumerates 17 operations across categories, providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like blender_rigging or blender_shapekeys, though the portmanteau rationale explains the consolidation rationale.

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 implies usage by listing operation categories (e.g., Basic Animation, Shape Keys, Constraints) and notes when certain parameters are required for specific operations. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, nor does it mention exclusions or when to prefer sibling tools such as blender_shapekeys or blender_rigging.

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