production.mocap_retarget

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it creates an immutable proposal plus a checkpoint and a new Action rather than mutating in place, which is useful for gauging risk. It stops short of saying what gets destroyed or how the proposal is accepted/rejected.

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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency; the arrow-chain is front-loaded with jargon an agent cannot decode. Nothing in it is wasted because there is almost nothing in it.

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?

Placeholder.

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 5 parameters (mode, options, operation, object_name, operation_id), and the description names none of them. An agent gets no hint that 'mode' exists or that 'analyze' is the default, so it cannot choose inputs without guessing.

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 a cryptic arrow-chain of workflow stages ('Reviewed mapping → immutable proposal → checkpoint → new Action → ...') rather than a verb+resource statement. It never says plainly that it retargets motion capture onto a rig, nor distinguishes itself from siblings like mocap_preview_retarget or mocap_map_skeleton.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it differs from mocap_preview_retarget or the preceding mocap_map_skeleton step. The implied prerequisite ('Reviewed mapping') is only hinted at via the arrow chain, not stated as a condition.

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