production.animation_validate_pose

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: plan-first behavior, source Actions being retained, and unsupported adapters returning concrete errors. It does not detail what specifically is validated, but the annotation context lowers the bar.

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 reasonably short (four sentences) but dense with unexplained jargon and run-on phrasing. 'high-level M6 unit' and 'technical QA and temporal artistic review are distinct' consume space without making the tool easier to select.

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?

The tool is complex (7 parameters, plan/apply workflow, generation reference) and has an output schema plus annotations to cover returns and safety. The description supplies prerequisites and workflow context, but with 0% parameter documentation it still leaves too much undefined for an agent to invoke confidently.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It briefly interprets apply (default false), generation (immutable plan.json reference), and options (stage parameters/thresholds/visual review), but leaves brief, intent, object_name, and operation_id completely undefined.

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 and opening phrase indicate pose validation, and 'technical QA' hints at a technical (not artistic) validation role. However, 'high-level M6 unit' is unexplained jargon and the description never states what is being validated against or how this differs from siblings like animation_validate_blocking or animation_analyze_pose_silhouette.

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 gives useful workflow guidance ('Plan first, apply=false by default') and prerequisites ('Explicit mapping and compatible body rig required'). It does not say when to choose this over other animation validation tools or name alternatives.

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