production.animation_generate_idle

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation), the description discloses the two-phase default, that generation is an immutable plan.json reference, prerequisite rig/mapping requirements, that source actions are retained, and that unsupported adapters error concretely. This is meaningful behavioral context, though the QA-vs-artistic-review clause is opaque.

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 short but front-loads jargon ("high-level M6 unit") instead of the core action, and packs several loosely related clauses into run-on statements. Sentences like "technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct" do not clearly earn their place.

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 described, and the workflow/prerequisite/error context is present. Still, for a complex 7-parameter generator with 0% schema documentation, the omission of brief/intent/object_name/operation_id leaves gaps an agent needs filled to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains apply (two-phase gating), generation (plan.json reference), and options (stage parameters/thresholds/review), but says nothing about brief, intent, object_name, or operation_id, leaving four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 never plainly states the verb and resource ("generate an idle animation from a brief/plan"); it leans on cryptic labels like "high-level M6 unit" and the tool name itself. An agent can infer idleness generation from the name, but the sentence does not independently establish what the tool does or how it differs from animation_generate or animation_generate_locomotion.

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" implies a plan-then-apply workflow, and "Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required" names prerequisites. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against the numerous sibling generators (locomotion, blocking, attack, animation_generation_plan) or statement of when-not to call it.

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