Create animation template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description usefully reinforces this by stating that provider scopes, locks and credits apply, that confirmation is mandatory before provider execution, and that only one submission is allowed — meaningful operational context beyond the raw annotation flags.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the leading endpoint and the operational caveats are front-loaded. Slightly terse given the complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Against a very large nested payload schema and no output schema, the description covers the operational envelope (confirmation, credits, single submission) but says nothing about the resulting template, required payload shape, or how failures surface. It is adequate but thin for a tool of this complexity.

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 (account, confirm, payload, payload_file) documented in the schema itself, including the exclusivity rule for payload vs payload_file. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is essentially the REST endpoint 'POST /v5/animation_templates', which restates what the tool name already implies rather than stating in plain language that it creates an animation template. It does not differentiate this create operation from siblings like create_image_template, create_animation, or create_workflow beyond the URL path.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance. It notes that 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply' and that confirmation is mandatory with 'one submission only', which are operational constraints on invocation but not routing guidance between this tool and its many create/list/update siblings.

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