production.animation_add_follow_through

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

Annotations already declare it as a non-destructive mutation, but the description adds significant context: the plan/apply split, default apply=false, the immutable plan.json reference, retention of source actions, separation of technical QA and artistic review, and error behavior for unsupported adapters. This goes well beyond the structured fields, though some phrasing is jargon-heavy.

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 a single dense paragraph with no clear front-loading; the opening phrase "high-level M6 unit" wastes space. It packs useful information but is not structured for quick scanning, mixing purpose, workflow, and error handling without clear separation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, mutation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers workflow and error handling but leaves four parameters unexplained. It also lacks sibling differentiation, leaving an agent to infer where this fits among many animation generation and refinement tools.

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%, so the description must compensate for all seven parameters. It only adds meaning for three (apply, generation, options) and leaves brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id 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 restates the tool name ("animation_add_follow_through: high-level M6 unit") without clarifying what the tool actually does in plain terms. It mentions planning and applying, but the core action (adding follow-through to an animation) is only inferred from the name; no specific verb+resource distinction from siblings is provided.

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 implies a two-step workflow ("Plan first, apply=false by default") and lists prerequisites ("explicit mapping and compatible body rig required"), giving some usage context. However, it does not name alternatives or specify when to avoid this tool versus related siblings like animation_add_overlap or animation_refine_generated.

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