production.animation_detect_quaternion_flips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context by explaining the q/-q equivalence that causes flips, but says nothing about scan scope (whole action? selected objects?), how flips are reported, or whether it writes anything. Adequate but thin for a detection tool with four filtering parameters.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the action verb, and the second clause earns its place by explaining the underlying quaternion semantics. Efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 4 undocumented parameters and no statement of what is scanned or what a 'detected flip' looks like in practice, the definition leaves core operational questions unanswered for a diagnostic tool in a large animation tool family.

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% — limit, offset, action_name and object_name have no documented meaning in the schema, and the description never mentions any parameter or how filtering works. It does not compensate at all, leaving the agent to guess whether action_name/object_name scope the scan.

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 ('Detect') and a precise technical resource ('raw quaternion hemisphere changes'), plus a clarifying note that q and -q are the same orientation. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling animation_fix_quaternion_flips (detect vs. fix), but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or ordering advice, and no pointer to animation_fix_quaternion_flips as the follow-up remediation step. An agent must infer that this belongs in an animation-diagnostic workflow from the tool name alone.

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