production.animation_create_brief

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does add preconditions (rig compatibility, explicit mapping), immutability of the plan reference, and error behavior for unsupported adapters. However, it never explains what apply=true actually does, which is a notable gap given the readOnlyHint=true annotation; an agent cannot tell whether flipping apply mutates scene state.

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?

The description is short and dense, but the opening clause ('animation_create_brief: high-level M6 unit') earns nothing and several sentences are compressed jargon rather than front-loaded, actionable guidance. Length is acceptable; information density per sentence is poor.

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, but with six undocumented parameters, zero schema coverage, and no plain statement of workflow or output artifact, the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: apply (default false), generation (plan.json reference) and options (stage parameters/thresholds/visual review) get cursory mentions. Three of six parameters — brief, intent, object_name — are never explained, and even the explained ones lack format or expected content.

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 first clause merely restates the name and adds internal jargon ('high-level M6 unit') that conveys nothing to an outside agent. The remaining clauses gesture at planning plus a 'brief'/'generation' workflow, but never plainly state what artifact is produced or how it differs from siblings such as animation_generation_plan or animation_create_action.

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' implies an ordering but never says when an agent should choose this tool over the many neighboring plan/generate/create tools. Preconditions are hinted ('explicit mapping and compatible body rig required') but there are no exclusions and no named alternatives.

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