production.mocap_cleanup

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine context — cleanups are scoped to one at a time and preserve the exact source and measured motion — but does not say what gets modified, whether a checkpoint is advisable, or how the 'one at a time' sequencing ties to operation_id.

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 dense sentence with no wasted words, and the safe-by-default constraint is front-loaded. However brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being genuinely concise.

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?

This is a complex, mutation-capable tool with seven unlabeled parameters and an iterative 'one at a time' protocol, yet the description gives no parameter guidance and no explanation of the operation_id/operation lifecycle. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the input-side gap is severe.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only restates the apply default (already in the schema). mode, strategy, operation, object_name, operation_id, and options are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at the core operation-selection arguments.

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 an action ('Analyze/propose one safe cleanup') but never states the resource explicitly or what kinds of cleanup are supported (contacts, root motion, fcurves, retarget cleanup). With siblings like mocap_analyze, animation_cleanup_fcurves, and facial_mocap_cleanup, an agent cannot cleanly tell this apart without inferring from the tool name.

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?

'One safe cleanup at a time' with 'apply=false default' implies a dry-run then apply workflow, which is useful implied guidance. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not conditions (e.g., when to use mocap_analyze first, or how this differs from animation_cleanup_fcurves).

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