animation_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It surfaces the critical caveat that the tool only shows an animation and does not perform actual typing, which prevents misuse. The wording also implies a non-mutating visual operation.

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 two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the critical behavioral caveat placed second. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of schema details.

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 simple visual-effect tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral context: it is a visual animation only, not actual typing. Nothing necessary for a correct call is missing.

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?

The input schema already describes all four parameters (x, y, text, and color) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond reiterating that coordinates and text are used, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Show a visual typing indicator animation with text at specified coordinates.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from actual typing by stating 'Does NOT actually type — only shows the animation,' which differentiates it from keyboard_type and other animation siblings.

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 clearly frames the tool as a visual-only effect and states an explicit exclusion: it 'does NOT actually type.' This tells an agent not to use it when real keyboard input is needed, though it does not explicitly name an alternative such as keyboard_type.

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