Compare deformation between two Actions on the same reference while restoring assignment, pose, and frame, enabling animation review without editing Action keys.
Sample two Actions against the same reference; restore assignment, pose and frame. No Action keys are edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| after_action | Yes | ||
| before_action | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations say readOnlyHint=false with no destructive hint; the description earns credit by clarifying that assignment, pose and frame are temporarily changed but restored, and that no Action keys are edited — exactly the state-mutation caveat an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether the scene is left exactly as found on failure.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core operation and the safety caveat front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though "Sample" is an imprecise word choice for a two-sentence budget.
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 no explanation, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool sitting among dozens of near-duplicate comparison tools, the absence of parameter meaning and sibling routing makes the definition incomplete.
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 parameter meaning. "Two Actions" loosely maps to before_action/after_action, but object_name and especially the free-form `options` object are never explained, leaving half the inputs opaque.
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 names the resource (two Actions compared against the same reference) and hints at scene-state handling, but the verb "Sample" is vague and it never distinguishes this from close siblings like animation_compare_actions, deformation_analyze, or animation_deformation_qa.
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 no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no alternative named among the many compare/analyze siblings. An agent must guess whether this or animation_compare_actions is the right entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.