production.animation_analyze_balance

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

The description honestly bounds the heuristic — 'not biomechanics' and 'never auto-corrects' — which complements destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. But it doesn't reconcile the readOnlyHint=false annotation (does it write a report or marker?), leaving the agent unsure about side effects.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the key caveats are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the semantic gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the non-corrective scope is stated. But for a two-parameter tool with a free-form options blob and no annotation clarity on writes, the description is not sufficient to call it confidently.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and 'options' is an untyped anyOf object accepting arbitrary additional properties. The description offers zero guidance on object_name format or what options are valid, so an agent must guess what to pass.

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 phrase 'support-region/pelvis projection heuristic' hints at a balance analysis, and 'never auto-corrects' distinguishes it from the refine sibling, but there's no explicit verb+resource statement like 'analyzes character balance from pelvis projection'. An agent can guess the purpose but must infer it.

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?

'Never auto-corrects' implies this is diagnostic-only and that production.animation_refine_balance is the corrective counterpart, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the many other analysis tools (animation_analyze_body_mechanics, animation_analyze_motion_quality).

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