production.animation_generate_attack

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses that apply=false defaults to a non-mutating plan, that the generation is an immutable plan.json reference, that Source Actions are retained, that technical QA and artistic review are separate stages, and that unsupported adapters return concrete errors. That is meaningful behavioral context for a mutation tool, though it stops short of describing rollback or permissions.

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 text is dense and front-loads jargon ('high-level M6 unit') ahead of the useful content, but each subsequent sentence carries concrete information about defaults, prerequisites, and error behavior. It is compact but not cleanly structured for a first-time reader.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves several parameters undescribed and never plainly states what the tool outputs as an artifact. For a 7-param generation tool with 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but incomplete.

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% on 7 optional params, so the description must compensate. It does explain apply (default false), generation (immutable plan.json reference), and options (declared stage parameters, thresholds, visual review), but leaves brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id entirely undocumented – so it only partially fills the coverage gap.

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 name implies generating an attack animation, but the description never plainly states that – it opens with the opaque label 'high-level M6 unit' and speaks of plans, generations, and QA review phases without a clear verb+resource statement. An agent can infer the purpose from the name and the 'generation'/'Source Actions' language, but the description itself does not cleanly declare it or distinguish it from siblings like animation_generate_blocking or animation_generate_hit_reaction.

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 one concrete sequencing rule, and 'Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required' states a prerequisite. However, it never names the alternative tool (animation_generation_plan) or explains when to prefer attack generation over other animation_generate_* variants, leaving routing guidance implied rather than explicit.

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