Create & preview an animation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes rendering and opening in browser, and emphasizes that the SVG must be self-contained. However, it lacks details on side effects like whether it replaces previous previews or opens a new tab, and does not mention error handling or state changes.

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 with 5 sentences, each adding value: purpose, composition guidance, preliminary step recommendation, style recording note, and SVG requirement. No wasted words.

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 complexity (7 params, no output schema), description explains input requirements and workflow well. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, animation ID), which is a gap since no output schema is provided.

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 meaning beyond schema by specifying that 'svg' must be a complete document with viewBox and embedded animations, and that 'style' should match the designed style for recording. This adds value for key parameters.

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 renders an animated SVG in a local preview UI and opens it in the browser. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning get_best_practices as a preliminary step, implying this is for creation rather than editing.

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?

It recommends calling get_best_practices first for full guidance, which provides context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context against siblings like apply_edit is clear.

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