Update animation template

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, readOnly=false. The description adds genuine value beyond them: 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply', a mandatory confirmation gate before execution, and 'one submission only' warning against retries. It stops short of stating exactly what is destroyed on the template or whether the payload replaces vs merges.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint and layered with operational constraints. Every clause carries weight (scopes, credits, confirmation, single submission). The path prefix is mildly redundant with the name but useful for API alignment.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and a deeply nested payload, the description covers safety gates and cost but omits the key replacement-vs-merge behavior of the PATCH body and what happens to unspecified existing layers. Given the annotations already carry the safety profile, it is adequate but with a clear gap on mutation semantics.

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 80%: account, confirm, payload and payload_file all carry descriptions, and the endpoint path references {uid}. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. Notably it does not surface the payload/payload_file exclusivity or the 'complete body' replacement semantic, both of which live only in the schema.

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 the concrete operation via 'PATCH /v5/animation_templates/{uid}', which together with the name makes the update-on-animation-template purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_animation_template or update_image_template, but the HTTP verb plus resource is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it.

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 guidance or naming of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over create_animation_template, update_image_template, or delete_animation_template, nor what prerequisites exist beyond the confirmation flag.

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