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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns a jobId (asynchronous, requiring polling get_job), handles the __idle__ special case, scales the animation to match other animations, and exports to every engine. These details go beyond the annotations and set accurate expectations for the agent.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the core functionality and differentiators, the second covers the __idle__ edge case, and the third explains the async return and polling. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly explains the return value (jobId) and directs the agent to poll get_job. It also covers the __idle__ fallback and the scaling/export behavior, making the tool's workflow clear. For a moderate 5-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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%, with all 5 parameters described in the schema. The description reinforces the special '__idle__' value for poseId but does not add new information about fps, newId, displayName, or characterId beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Promote a pose') and clearly identifies the output as a 'real 1-frame animation (a still/idle)'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the pose-to-animation conversion and the scaling to match other animations, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 states this is 'FREE, no AI', implying it is a lightweight alternative to AI-driven animation generation. It clearly explains the use case: converting a pose into a 1-frame animation that scales and exports. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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