production.animation_analyze_arcs

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses real behavior: dry-run by default, generation treated as an immutable plan reference, source Actions preserved, and unsupported adapters returning concrete errors. These details are consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false and give the agent a meaningful safety and failure model, though the 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?

It is short and the workflow constraint is front-loaded, but the opening clause "high-level M6 unit" earns nothing and the remaining sentences compress several distinct ideas (workflow, prerequisites, preservation, review stages, options, error behavior) into opaque nomenclature.

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-required, mutation-capable tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical decision points: default dry-run, prerequisite rig mapping, source preservation, and error behavior on unsupported adapters. What is missing is coverage of the four undefined input parameters and any statement of what the analysis returns conceptually.

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 carry the load; it explains apply (default false), generation (immutable plan.json reference) and options (declared stage parameters, thresholds, visual review). The remaining four parameters (brief, intent, object_name, operation_id) get no mention at all, leaving roughly half of the surface undocumented.

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?

"animation_analyze_arcs: high-level M6 unit" essentially restates the name and adds an internal tier label an agent cannot interpret; it never says what an arc analysis actually inspects or produces. The only substantive hints are "technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct," which gestures at two outputs but does not distinguish this from siblings such as animation_analyze_motion_quality or animation_analyze_spacing.

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 usable workflow cue and "Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required" states a prerequisite, which is more than nothing. However, no alternative is named (e.g. animation_refine_arcs for fixes), and there is no statement of when-not to call it.

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