anim_play_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the write/destructive nature. The description adds useful context that output is a low-quality quick preview, but it doesn't disclose additional traits such as overwrite behavior or resource cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function, then optional parameters, then usage caveat. The bilingual format doubles the length but is justified by the mixed-language audience. No filler or redundant sentences beyond the translation.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters fully documented in the schema and destructive behavior flagged in annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage intent. No output schema exists, but for a file-generation tool the output is the written file, so return-value documentation is not essential.

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%—each parameter already documents defaults and meaning. The description's mention that 'Output path and frame range are optional' simply restates the schema. No additional semantic depth is provided, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a real-time preview animation file (avi / image sequence)'. It also clarifies the tool is for quick checks, not final render, which positions it among animation/render siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of 5.

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 provides an explicit when-not: 'The preview is for quick checks, not final render.' This tells the agent this is for iteration, not final output. However, it doesn't name a specific alternative like render_animation or render_preview, so while clear, it lacks explicit sibling routing.

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