production.animation_generate_start_stop

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. Against that, the description adds useful traits: apply=false default means a plan-only dry run, generation references an immutable plan.json, source Actions are retained, and unsupported adapters return concrete errors. The phrasing is dense and vague ('generation is the immutable plan.json reference'), limiting its value.

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 compact, but the first clause repeats the name, and sentences like 'technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct' add little for an invoking agent. Dense jargon reduces front-loaded clarity rather than enhancing it.

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 7-parameter, no-coverage, high-complexity generation tool, the description leaves too much implicit: most parameter meanings, the meaning of 'M6', and how brief/intent/object_name interact are unaddressed. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but the input side remains thin.

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% for 7 parameters, several of which (brief, intent, object_name, operation_id) are never mentioned. The description only sheds light on apply (default false), options ('declared stage parameters, thresholds or visual review'), and obliquely generation, leaving the rest 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 opening 'animation_generate_start_stop: high-level M6 unit' largely restates the name plus an opaque internal tag, without ever plainly stating 'generates a start/stop animation clip.' The reader must infer the resource from the tool name; the description adds prerequisites but not a clear purpose statement.

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 gives some real usage context — 'Plan first, apply=false by default' and 'Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required' — which tells the agent prerequisites and the plan-before-apply workflow. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings like animation_generate, animation_generate_locomotion, or animation_generation_plan.

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