production.animation_generate_effector_contact

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

Annotations already declare the mutating but non-destructive, non-idempotent profile. The description adds useful context: plan-first default, immutable plan.json as the generation reference, source Actions retained, and concrete errors for unsupported adapters. It stops short of explaining reversibility or side effects of apply=true.

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 a dense run-on of fragmented clauses with heavy jargon ('high-level M6 unit', 'declared stage parameters') that is not front-loaded around the core action. Several clauses ('technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct') add little for an invoking agent.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too abstract. Output schema exists so returns need not be explained, but the inputs, apply semantics, and workflow are under-specified for an agent to call it confidently.

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 params. The description adds meaning for only three (apply default false, generation as plan.json reference, options as stage params/thresholds), leaving brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 largely restates the name ('animation_generate_effector_contact: high-level M6 unit') and adds undefined jargon ('M6 unit'). It never explains what an 'effector contact' animation is or how it differs from close siblings like animation_generate_foot_contacts or animation_detect_contact_surface.

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 a real workflow precondition, and 'explicit mapping and compatible body rig required' states prerequisites. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so routing among the many generate_* siblings is left to inference.

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