Animation tags

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds no further operational behavior such as whether update/overwrite existing tags, what delete removes, or lifecycle consequences beyond saying untagged spritesheets are unusable — which is workflow context, not tool behavior.

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 core definition, then ops, then workflow guidance. The 'pile of frames' phrase is evocative but slightly ornamental; otherwise every part earns its place.

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?

This is a high-complexity multi-op tool (9 params, 4 operations, an output schema) and the description does not specify op-parameter contracts, e.g. what create requires vs update vs delete. The 'tag before export' guidance and annotations help, but an agent still cannot reliably decide the correct param set for each op from this definition.

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 description contributes the key model that tags are named frame ranges, giving meaning to name/from/to, and it restates the op enum. However, it does not map which parameters are valid for each operation, nor explain newName or direction; with only 56% schema coverage, that leaves meaningful gaps.

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 identifies the resource ('animation tags') and explains what tags are (named frame ranges imported as 'idle', 'walk', 'attack'), and it enumerates the supported operations. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling frame/cel tools, though 'Manage' is somewhat generic and the target sprite is implied rather than stated.

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 gives clear operational context: 'Tag every cycle before export', telling the agent when tags must be maintained. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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