production.animation_adjust_timing

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds real value on top: source actions are retained, generation acts as an immutable plan.json reference, and unsupported adapters return concrete errors. It still does not say what is actually modified in the scene or whether apply=false writes anything at all.

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?

Front-loading is squandered on a restatement of the tool name, and terms like "M6 unit" and "temporal artistic review" are undefined internal jargon that consume space without informing an agent. The sentences are terse but opaque rather than efficient.

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 7-parameter, zero-coverage schema with no required fields, the description leaves most inputs unaddressed; the existence of an output schema covers return values, but the input contract remains largely undocumented. An agent would have to guess at brief, intent, object_name and operation_id semantics.

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 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains only apply, generation and options in vague terms ("options carries declared stage parameters, thresholds or visual review"), and leaves brief, intent, object_name and operation_id completely undefined.

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 and labels it a "high-level M6 unit" without ever saying what timing adjustment it performs or what it produces. Siblings such as animation_analyze_timing, animation_retime and animation_analyze_fcurves are never differentiated, so an agent cannot tell what makes this the right call.

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?

"Plan first, apply=false by default" gives a useful dry-run convention, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over animation_retime or the analyze_* timing tools. Prerequisites are asserted ("explicit mapping and compatible body rig required") without explaining how to satisfy them.

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