production.animation_generate_turn

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds useful operational context: generation is an immutable plan.json reference, source Actions are retained, and unsupported adapters return concrete errors.

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 short but dense with unexplained jargon ('M6 unit', 'temporal artistic review') and semicolon-chained clauses. Some clauses add useful context, but others are opaque and could be reorganized for better front-loading.

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 complex seven-parameter generation tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition omits meaning for most parameters and adds little about invocation beyond plan/apply and rig prerequisites. The output schema covers return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

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 seven parameters. The description clarifies apply's default, generation as an immutable plan reference, and options as stage parameters/thresholds/visual review, but leaves brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id 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 by restating the tool name and calling it a 'high-level M6 unit,' which is internal jargon rather than a clear statement of what a turn animation is. It never explains what 'turn' means or how this differs from sibling generators such as 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?

It gives a procedural rule ('Plan first, apply=false by default') and prerequisites ('Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required'), which implies when the tool can run. However, it does not name alternatives or say when to choose this over the many other animation_generate_* siblings.

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