production.facial_mocap_retarget

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that candidates are new Actions evaluated through NLA tracks, the body Action is never modified, the facial reference is immutable, plan mode is the default, and missing speech timing raises TIMING_INPUT_REQUIRED. This is substantial behavioral context for a mutation tool whose annotations only set broad safety flags.

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 compact but dense with jargon ('M7 facial unit', 'evidence-based semantic mapping') and uses semicolons rather than a clear front-loaded summary. Some sentences earn their place, but the opening jargon and cryptic phrasing reduce clarity.

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?

It covers key behavioral constraints (plan/apply, immutability, NLA candidates, speech timing, QA separation) but omits parameter meanings for 5 of 7 params and does not clarify prerequisites or how to choose this tool over its many facial and mocap siblings. For a complex facial retargeting operation, this leaves notable gaps.

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 carries full burden. It only touches on 'apply' (default false) and 'facial' (immutable plan.json reference), leaving brief, intent, options, object_name, and operation_id completely unexplained.

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 description imply a facial mocap retargeting operation, but the opening 'M7 facial unit' is opaque and the description never plainly states 'retarget facial mocap data onto a facial rig.' It distinguishes itself from modifying the body Action, but does not clearly separate its role from nearby siblings like facial_mocap_map or facial_mocap_analyze.

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 explicit default behavior ('plan first, apply=false by default') and a condition for speech data ('Speech needs explicit timed phonemes/visemes'). However, it never names alternatives or states when to use this tool versus facial_mocap_map, facial_mocap_cleanup, or body mocap_retarget.

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