production.animation_reject_generated

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses meaningful behavior: the default is a non-mutating plan pass (apply=false), the generation reference is immutable, Source Actions are retained (consistent with destructiveHint=false), and unsupported adapters fail with concrete errors. What it omits is the outcome of a rejection — whether generated artifacts are discarded, flagged, or versioned.

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 text is a semicolon-chained run-on that does not front-load the purpose; a reader must reverse-engineer the operation from trailing clues. Clauses like 'high-level M6 unit' and 'technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct' consume space without helping the agent decide or invoke.

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 need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotation detail and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves four parameters undefined and never says what rejection produces in the pipeline. Jargon ('M6 unit', 'adapters') assumes undisclosed internal context.

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, and it only covers three of seven parameters: apply (default false), generation (immutable plan.json reference), and options (stage parameters, thresholds, visual review). brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id are left entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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 never plainly states the action (rejecting a previously generated animation) — the verb is only carried by the tool name. It implies the operation via 'generation is the immutable plan.json reference' and 'Source Actions retained', but leads with opaque jargon like 'high-level M6 unit' rather than a specific verb+resource statement. An agent can roughly infer intent but not cleanly distinguish it from animation_accept_generated or animation_refine_generated.

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 a real dry-run-then-apply workflow, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, there is no statement of when to reject versus accept/refine, and no naming of sibling alternatives despite animation_accept_generated being an obvious counterpart.

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