Generates a deterministic blocking-animation version for a specified shot and source version, with configurable motion and interpolation in versioned Blender production.
Create a deterministic blocking-animation version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| motion | No | blocking | |
| shot_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| interpolation | No | BEZIER | |
| source_version | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful trait ('deterministic'), but omits mutation semantics, permission requirements, overwrite behavior, and what 'blocking' implies for the created animation.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but for a six-parameter creation tool with no schema descriptions it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Brevity here leaves critical gaps.
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?
The tool is complex: six parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the description still fails to cover input semantics, prerequisites, or usage context, making it inadequate overall.
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 0% across six parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Required inputs such as project_root, shot_id, source_version, and request_id are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 gives a specific verb ('Create') and a resource ('blocking-animation version'), but the object being animated is implied rather than stated and no sibling differentiation is provided. It is clearer than a tautology, yet an agent cannot tell from the text alone what kind of shot/asset this applies to.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_shot, assemble_shot, or add_secondary_motion. The description offers no routing information beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.