production.animation_fix_foot_sliding

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds the meaningful idea that mutations require an 'immutable operation' and confirmed contacts, but both terms are undefined and no permission model, reversibility, or revert semantics are described beyond the bare word 'revert'. Cryptic shorthand rather than actionable disclosure.

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 mode sequence is front-loaded, so nothing is padded. However, the telegraphic slash-list and undefined jargon make it dense to the point of being unparseable, which is under-specification rather than effective concision.

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 explained, but a five-parameter mutation tool with no required fields, no enums, and 0% schema coverage needs far more than this. Critical gaps remain around what 'options', 'object_name', and 'operation_id' accept and how modes chain together.

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 coverage is 0% for five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. The mode list loosely maps to the 'mode' parameter, and 'operation'/'confirm_contacts' hint at the operation field and options payload, but object_name and operation_id are entirely unexplained and no formats are given.

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 description lists a lifecycle of modes ('Analyze/propose/preview/apply/verify/revert') but never states the resource being acted on, i.e. foot sliding. An agent must infer the actual purpose from the tool name alone, and nothing distinguishes it from animation_detect_foot_sliding or animation_generate_foot_contacts.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mode list hints at a workflow order, but it never says to run detect_foot_sliding first, or when to choose fix vs. generate_foot_contacts. The prerequisite phrase 'reviewed controls' is unexplained.

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