production.animation_generate_breakdowns

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description's useful additions are the dry-run default, the immutable plan.json reference, retention of Source Actions, and concrete errors for unsupported adapters. That is real value beyond the schema, but the clauses about 'technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct' are opaque and add little actionable clarity.

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 a run of dense, telegraphic clauses rather than front-loaded prose, and the leading name restatement plus 'M6 unit' consume space without informing the agent. Several fragments ('technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct') do not earn their place without supporting context.

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 for a 7-parameter mutation-style tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves too much unsaid: the meaning of most inputs and the concrete plan-then-apply workflow are not spelled out. It is insufficient for correct invocation.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description only glosses 'apply' (default false), 'generation' (immutable plan reference) and partially 'options'. It says nothing about brief, intent, object_name, or operation_id, leaving four parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 opens by restating the tool name ('animation_generate_breakdowns: high-level M6 unit'), which conveys nothing, then leans on internal jargon ('M6 unit', 'plan.json reference') that does not state in plain terms what a breakdown is or what is produced. An agent can infer it is a generation step with a planning phase, but the actual verb+resource is never spelled out and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like animation_generation_plan or animation_generate.

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' plus 'Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required' gives implied usage and a prerequisite, which is more than nothing. However, no sibling alternative is named despite dozens of overlapping generation tools, and there is no statement of when-not to use it or how it relates to animation_generation_plan.

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