production.mocap_preview_retarget

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only but non-destructive, and the description adds that omitting operation proposes while passing an immutable operation bakes a checkpointed preview Action and restores target assignment. That reveals state-change behavior beyond annotations, but the meaning of 'immutable operation' and the checkpoint/restore semantics remain unclear.

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?

It is one sentence with a semicolon, but the brevity is achieved through unreadable jargon and missing context rather than efficient communication. The key distinction is buried in an awkward clause, so it is not front-loaded for an agent.

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?

Although an output schema and annotations exist, the tool is a mutation operation with four undocumented optional parameters and a description that does not fully explain the propose/bake workflow. An agent would not know how to construct a correct call or interpret the behavioral implications without guessing.

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% and none of the four parameters (options, operation, object_name, operation_id) are documented in the schema. The description minimally distinguishes operation modes but does not explain object_name, operation_id, or options, leaving most parameter meaning unspecified.

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 is cryptic and jargon-heavy: 'propose' and 'bake checkpointed new preview Action' do not clearly explain what the tool actually does or how it differs from the sibling production.mocap_retarget. The name suggests preview retargeting, but the description never states that plainly.

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 a conditional hint ('Without operation propose; with immutable operation bake...') but never says when to use this tool versus production.mocap_retarget, production.mocap_analyze, or other mocap siblings. The operation-mode split is too vague to serve as actionable selection guidance.

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