production.animation_analyze_spacing

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), it discloses meaningful conduct: dry-run by default via apply=false, the generation artifact is an immutable plan.json reference, source Actions are retained, and unsupported adapters return concrete errors rather than failing silently. That is substantive behavioral context an agent could not get from structured fields alone.

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 compact, but the opening 'high-level M6 unit' is internal shorthand that spends prime front-loaded space without telling the agent what the tool does. Several clauses ('temporal artistic review are distinct', 'declared stage parameters') are dense yet low-information for a caller.

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 shape need not be described, and the description does cover the plan-then-apply workflow and prerequisites. Still, for a 7-parameter, zero-coverage analysis tool in a dense sibling family, the missing per-parameter guidance and missing differentiation from other animation_analyze_* tools leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 compensate. It partially does: apply's default-dry-run meaning, generation as an immutable plan.json reference, and options as the carrier for stage parameters, thresholds, or visual review. brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id go entirely unexplained, leaving half 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?

The name and phrase 'high-level M6 unit' plus 'Plan first, apply=false by default' imply an analysis stage that emits a plan, but the description never states what 'spacing' analysis actually computes or returns. Internal jargon like 'M6 unit' and 'declared stage parameters' obscures rather than clarifies, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as animation_analyze_timing, animation_analyze_arcs, or animation_analyze_bezier.

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?

It gives real entry conditions: plan first, apply defaults to false, and 'explicit mapping and compatible body rig required'. However it never says when to reach for this tool versus the other spacing/timing analysis siblings, so the agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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