production.animation_generate_pose

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds real context on top: generation is an immutable plan.json reference, source Actions are retained, explicit mapping and a compatible body rig are prerequisites, and unsupported adapters fail with concrete errors. Some phrasing ("technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct") is opaque, but the safety and prerequisite picture is meaningfully enriched.

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 reasonably short and starts with the tool name, but several clauses ("high-level M6 unit", "technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct") consume space without informing invocation. The dense, run-on sentence packing makes key constraints harder to extract than they should be.

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 needn't be described, but for a 7-parameter generation tool with zero schema coverage and dozens of animation siblings, the description omits parameter meaning, sibling routing, and what the brief/intent inputs are for. The prerequisites and plan-first ordering are the only things that make it callable at all.

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% with 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only touches three of them vaguely: apply (default false), generation ("immutable plan.json reference"), and options (stage parameters/thresholds/visual review). brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id get no explanation at all.

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?

"high-level M6 unit" is internal jargon that conveys nothing to an agent, and the description never plainly states that it generates a pose. Only the plan-first/apply-default sentence hints at generation, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like animation_plan_poses, animation_generate, or animation_validate_pose.

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 required ordering and a dry-run-first workflow, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never names the sibling to call first (animation_generation_plan vs animation_plan_poses) or states when this tool should be chosen over animation_generate or animation_generate_blocking.

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