production.animation_plan_poses

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that 'generation is the immutable plan.json reference' and 'source Actions retained', which clarifies side effects. It also mentions unsupported adapters return errors, adding some behavioral context, but it lacks details on permissions or full mutation effects.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the tool name repetition. It is moderately sized but could be more structured; some sentences are cryptic and not all information is essential. It is not overly verbose but lacks clear organization.

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?

Given 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain most parameters and does not clarify the planning workflow or the meaning of key arguments, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only partially covers apply (default false), generation (immutable plan.json reference), and options (stage parameters, thresholds, visual review). The roles of brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id are not described, leaving most parameters 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 description does not clearly state what the tool does. It repeats the tool name and uses jargon like 'high-level M6 unit' without a specific verb+resource. It hints at planning poses but remains vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like animation_generation_plan or animation_generate_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?

It says 'Plan first, apply=false by default' which implies a when-to-use, but it does not mention alternatives or when-not to use this tool. The requirement of 'explicit mapping and compatible body rig' is a prerequisite but no guidance on tool selection is provided.

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