production.animation_analyze_timing

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that execution is non-mutating unless apply=true, that the generation is an immutable plan.json reference, that source Actions are retained, and that unsupported adapters return concrete errors. That is meaningful behavioral context for a potentially mutating tool; only the plan.json mechanics stay opaque.

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 apply-default caveat is reasonably front-loaded, but the telegraphic, jargon-heavy phrasing ('high-level M6 unit', 'options carries declared stage parameters') costs readability without adding information.

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 need not be described, and the mutation/planning semantics and prerequisites are covered. But with seven parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too many inputs unexplained for a tool of this complexity.

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 all parameter meaning, and it only covers apply, generation, and options (stage parameters, thresholds, visual review). brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id are completely undocumented, leaving over half the parameters unexplained.

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 the mentions of 'temporal artistic review' versus 'technical QA' imply a timing-analysis pass, but the description never states in plain terms what is analyzed or produced. 'High-level M6 unit' is internal jargon that adds no meaning, so the agent must infer the purpose largely from the tool name.

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 real ordering guidance, and 'explicit mapping and compatible body rig required' states a prerequisite. However, no alternative among the many timing siblings (animation_analyze_spacing, animation_adjust_timing, animation_analyze_fcurves) is named, so when to prefer this tool over them is left to inference.

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