production.animation_generate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotency; the description adds that the default is a non-mutating plan-only pass and that unsupported adapters error out, which is genuinely useful. It doesn't say what apply=true destroys or overwrites, and 'generation is the immutable plan.json reference' is too vague to act on.

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 single run-on paragraph front-loads a cryptic label ('high-level M6 unit') and crams unrelated clauses together. 'Technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct' is tangential to selecting or calling this tool and should be cut or moved.

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 covered, but for a 7-parameter orchestration tool with 0% schema coverage the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent without the semantics of most inputs or a clear picture of the plan-then-apply workflow.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden, but it only hints at apply (default false) and options ('declared stage parameters, thresholds or visual review'). Brief, intent, generation, object_name and operation_id are not explained anywhere, leaving most of the interface undocumented.

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 opening 'animation_generate: high-level M6 unit' is opaque jargon, though the following clauses reveal it produces an animation plan and can apply it. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the ~20 sibling tools such as animation_generate_locomotion or animation_generation_plan, so an agent cannot tell which one is the general-purpose entry point.

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' gives an implied workflow and 'Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required' gives a prerequisite. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. animation_generation_plan or animation_generate_* variants) or states when this tool should not be used.

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