production.animation_refine_arcs

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: source Actions are retained, the generation reference is immutable, and unsupported adapters fail with concrete errors. It omits what happens on apply=true in terms of modified data and whether re-runs stack.

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?

Sentences are dense with internal jargon ('M6 unit', 'temporal artistic review are distinct', 'unsupported adapters') and the most important concept — what refinement does — never appears. Front-loading is wasted on the name restatement.

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 so return values needn't be described, but for a zero-required, seven-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call or predict side effects beyond 'source actions retained'.

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 carry the burden, yet it only gestures at three of seven parameters (apply, generation, options) in vague terms. brief, intent, object_name and operation_id — including what operation_id correlates — get no explanation at all.

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 text opens by restating the name and then labels it a 'high-level M6 unit', which tells an agent nothing about what arc refinement actually does to the animation. It never states a concrete operation (e.g. adjusting keyframe arcs on fcurves) or how the result differs from siblings like animation_analyze_arcs 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, apply=false by default' gives an implied workflow, and 'Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required' names prerequisites. However, it never names an alternative tool or explains when to choose this over animation_refinement_plan, animation_analyze_arcs, or animation_polish_curves.

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