production.mocap_analyze

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

The description asserts the tool is 'Read-only', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent receives directly conflicting safety signals for a call it may make on production assets. No additional behavioral context is offered to resolve the conflict (e.g., whether the tool loads/imports data into the scene).

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?

A single tight clause with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.

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 described, but for a two-parameter analysis tool the description omits the target object, the meaning of 'options', and any usage context. The read-only/readOnlyHint conflict also leaves the agent without a reliable safety picture.

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 carries the full burden, and it explains nothing about the parameters. The required 'object_name' is never mentioned, and 'options' is an unconstrained free-form object with no hint of what keys it accepts (tolerances? which checks to run? jitter thresholds?).

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 (mocap data) and enumerates the specific analyses performed: hierarchy, root motion, scale, channel/jitter, and rest pose. That is far more than a restatement of the name, though it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like animation_analyze_root_motion or mocap_cleanup.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this analysis, what prerequisites exist (an imported mocap take? a selected armature?), or which sibling to use instead. The agent must infer that this is a pre-retarget/pre-cleanup diagnostic purely from the topic words.

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