Corrects quaternion flips on a duplicated animation while rejecting orientation paths that exceed tolerance, so rotation curves stay stable and verified.
Correct quaternion representation on a duplicate; reject changed orientation paths beyond tolerance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | analyze | |
| options | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| object_name | No | ||
| operation_id | No |
| 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 establish that the tool is mutating but not destructive. The description usefully adds that the correction happens on a duplicate and that changed orientation paths beyond tolerance are rejected, but it does not clarify permissions, failure behavior, or what exactly is modified.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though the phrase about changed orientation paths beyond tolerance is compact to the point of being somewhat opaque.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and annotations cover basic safety traits. However, for a tool with five completely undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse to explain how to invoke it correctly or what each parameter controls.
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?
All five parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. Terms like mode, options, operation, object_name, and operation_id are left entirely undocumented, making correct invocation difficult.
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 states a specific verb and resource: correcting quaternion representation on a duplicate, with a rejection condition for changed orientation paths beyond tolerance. It distinguishes the action from the sibling detection tool by implying a fix rather than an analysis, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as animation_detect_quaternion_flips or animation_duplicate_action. The rejection condition describes behavior, not selection criteria, so the agent must infer the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.