production.mocap_map_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only vague context about combining evidence and validating a reviewed mapping; it does not explain what validation checks are performed, what happens if mapping_approved is false, or how confidence affects behavior.

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 very short, but it is cryptic rather than efficient. The two clauses are not front-loaded with a clear purpose and leave the reader guessing what 'combine semantic evidence' means in practice.

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 has five parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, but the description does not cover the required inputs or the validation behavior. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without inferring heavily from the name and annotations.

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?

With five parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not. It never mentions source_armature, target_armature, mapping_approved, minimum_confidence, or the structure of the mapping parameter, leaving all input semantics undocumented.

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 says 'Combine semantic evidence' and 'validate one-to-one reviewed required mapping before retarget,' which only vaguely gestures at a skeleton-mapping validation step. It never clearly states that the tool maps source skeleton bones to a target skeleton or how that mapping is produced.

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?

The phrase 'before retarget' implies a sequencing constraint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as mocap_analyze, mocap_preview_retarget, or mocap_retarget. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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