production.animation_generate_hit_reaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral details: generation is an immutable plan reference, source Actions are retained, and unsupported adapters return concrete errors. It does not contradict annotations.

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 description is a dense, jargon-heavy block with no clear front-loading of purpose. It repeats the tool name and uses undefined terms like 'M6 unit', adding cognitive load.

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 tool with seven undocumented parameters and a complex generation workflow, the description is too terse on parameter meaning and selection criteria. It does include some behavioral notes, but overall the agent lacks enough information 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 description coverage is 0%, so all seven parameters lack schema documentation. The description only sheds light on apply (default false), options (carries stage parameters/thresholds), and generation (immutable reference), leaving brief, intent, object_name, operation_id undefined. Compensation is partial.

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 and calling it a 'high-level M6 unit', which does not define what a hit reaction generation does. It never states a clear verb+resource, and while it mentions plan-first behavior, the core purpose remains opaque.

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?

It says 'Plan first, apply=false by default' and notes prerequisites ('explicit mapping and compatible body rig required'), giving some implied usage context. But it never names an alternative sibling or states when not to use it.

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