production.animation_generate_root_motion

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: apply defaults to false, generation is an immutable plan.json reference, Source Actions are retained, and unsupported adapters return concrete errors. This is useful behavioral disclosure, though the 'technical QA vs. temporal artistic review' line 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?

Starts by restating the tool name and leads with opaque jargon ('high-level M6 unit'). Sentences are dense and under-explain key terms rather than being genuinely concise; useful facts (apply default, prerequisites, error behavior) are buried mid-stream.

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, and the annotations cover safety. The description supplies workflow, prerequisites, and mutation semantics, but with 0% parameter coverage and jargon-heavy prose, an agent still lacks enough 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 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only apply (default false), options (stage parameters/thresholds/visual review), and loosely generation (plan.json reference); brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id are entirely unexplained.

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 'high-level M6 unit', which is internal jargon rather than a statement of what the tool produces. It gestures at 'generation' being an immutable plan.json reference, but never states plainly that it generates/applies root motion curves from a plan, nor distinguishes itself from close siblings like animation_prepare_root_motion or animation_generation_plan.

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 workflow and prerequisites ('explicit mapping and compatible body rig required'), which gives some when-to-use guidance. However, no explicit alternative is named (vs. animation_prepare_root_motion or animation_generation_plan) and no when-not conditions are stated.

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