production.animation_generate_foot_contacts

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description does add real context beyond them: source Actions are retained (confirming non-destructive behavior), the generation is an immutable plan.json reference, and unsupported adapters return concrete errors. However 'technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct' is cryptic and adds no actionable trait.

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 lead sentence is spent on an internal codename ('high-level M6 unit') rather than the front-loaded statement of purpose the agent needs. Several clauses ('technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct') are dense terminology that consumes space without transferring information.

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 generation tool with zero schema coverage the description leaves core inputs undecided and never plainly states what artifact is produced. An agent would know to plan first and that a rig mapping is required, but not how to populate brief, intent or object_name.

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, so the description carries the full burden and only partly delivers: it explains apply (default false / plan mode), generation (immutable plan.json reference) and options (stage parameters, thresholds, visual review). Four parameters (brief, intent, object_name, operation_id) are never mentioned anywhere, leaving half the surface 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 description opens with the opaque label 'high-level M6 unit', which conveys nothing about what the tool produces. The verb 'generate' only appears implicitly via 'generation is the immutable plan.json reference', and nothing contrasts it with close siblings such as animation_generate_effector_contact, animation_analyze_contacts or animation_fix_foot_sliding, so an agent cannot separate it from those without guessing.

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' is genuinely useful workflow guidance, and 'Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required' names prerequisites before the call is attempted. What is missing is any routing: no statement of when to choose this over the sibling contact-analysis or effector-contact generation tools.

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