Compare two animation Actions by exact fingerprint and evaluated pose to detect differences, then restore the original assignment and frame for reliable review.
Compare exact Action fingerprints and evaluated poses; restores assignment and frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame_end | No | ||
| frame_start | No | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| after_action | Yes | ||
| before_action | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent). The description usefully adds that the tool 'restores assignment and frame', clarifying the temporary side effect despite readOnlyHint=false. It does not cover required preconditions or limits of the comparison.
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?
One compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and the state-restoration note appended. No filler, though the density makes it harder to parse.
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 documented. However, with zero schema description coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter comparison tool.
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 5 params. The description never explains what object_name, before_action, after_action, or the frame range mean or how they interact, leaving even the required inputs under-specified beyond their self-evident titles.
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?
States a specific verb ('compare') and specific resources ('Action fingerprints and evaluated poses'), which clearly differentiates it from generic before/after comparison siblings. The term 'fingerprint' is domain jargon but the operation is identifiable.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus siblings like qa_compare_before_after, deformation_compare, or animation_analyze_fcurves. An agent must infer selection 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.