Patch an animation (fast edit)

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it states edits are applied in place, the patch is rejected wholesale if any find is missing, and the preview refreshes live. It discloses atomicity and failure mode clearly.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance, then constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It fits in a short paragraph.

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 no output schema, the description could be more explicit about return values or response format. However, it covers the essential behavior (live preview, rejection) and constraints well. Slightly incomplete on result details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds critical context beyond schema: 'Each find must match the current SVG exactly (verbatim substring)' and explains rejection behavior. This adds meaning to parameter usage.

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 the tool applies small find/replace edits to an animation's SVG in place, lists examples (color, size, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'apply_edit' as a faster alternative.

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 explicitly advises 'Prefer this over apply_edit' and provides clear fallback behavior: if a find isn't found the patch is rejected, with instructions to fix the find or fall back to apply_edit. This gives excellent when-to-use guidance.

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