production.animation_generation_plan

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

Annotations cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context: explicit mapping and a compatible body rig are required, source Actions are retained, and unsupported adapters return concrete errors. It still does not explain what apply=true changes or any permission requirements, so it is strong but not complete.

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 paragraph is not excessively long, but it front-loads opaque jargon ('high-level M6 unit', 'immutable plan.json reference') and packs multiple distinct concepts into dense sentences. It is adequately sized but not front-loaded for quick agent scanning.

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 and annotations cover safety, but the description is thin for a 7-parameter planning tool in a crowded animation-generation suite. It omits most parameter meanings and the workflow relationship to generation, compatibility, render, accept/reject, and plan_poses siblings.

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?

With 7 optional parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only clarifies apply (default false), options (stage parameters/thresholds/visual review), and generation as a plan.json reference. Brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id remain unexplained, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 name plus 'Plan first' and 'generation is the immutable plan.json reference' indicate a planning step for animation generation, but 'high-level M6 unit' is opaque and it never names how it differs from siblings such as animation_generate, animation_generation_compatibility, or animation_refinement_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' and apply=false by default imply this is used before applying or generating, and the explicit mapping/compatible rig requirement gives a precondition. However, no alternatives, exclusions, or required sequence relative to compatibility/render/generate siblings are stated.

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