production.animation_prepare_root_motion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotent, and the description adds the useful guarantee that no rig restructuring occurs, bounding the mutation. However, it does not clarify that the default mode is 'analyze' or whether the proposal mutates the scene, leaving the read-vs-write picture ambiguous against readOnlyHint=false.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping clause follows the action immediately. Its brevity is a virtue here, though it leaves the gaps that other dimensions penalize.

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 five-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation, one sentence is far too thin; an agent cannot know what mode/operation/options do or what a 'proposal' artifact looks like. The presence of an output schema offsets some return-value burden but not the input ambiguity.

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?

All five parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them: mode, options, operation, object_name and operation_id are left opaque. Only a faint hint exists that object_name is the unparented root being targeted.

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?

States a specific verb (propose removal) and a precise resource (in-place horizontal root motion) plus two scoping constraints: the root must be explicit and unparented, and no rig restructuring occurs. It is distinguishable from animation_analyze_root_motion and animation_generate_root_motion by being a proposal step, though it never names those siblings.

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?

The preconditions ('explicit unparented root') and the boundary ('no rig restructuring') imply when this fits, but the description never says when to pick this over animation_analyze_root_motion or animation_generate_root_motion, nor what happens after a proposal is produced.

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