ae_create_motion_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully states that the tool 'does not mutate After Effects,' which is an important non-mutating trait. However, it does not explain what the tool returns, whether the blueprint is persisted, how the `brief` is used, or what 'explainable' means operationally for subsequent validation and rendering steps.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding the non-mutation qualifier. It is concise and avoids most filler, though the terms 'canonical' and 'explainable' are slightly abstract and could be replaced with more concrete behavioral details.

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 creation tool with 10 parameters, a nested scenes array, and no output schema, yet the description offers only a high-level summary. It does not explain what the blueprint output looks like, how to validate it, or how parameters like `energy`, `scenes`, and `render_format` contribute. An agent would likely need external knowledge or further exploration to invoke it correctly and confidently.

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 must compensate, but it provides no parameter-level explanations. The phrase 'scenes, brand, timing, templates, QA, and rendering' loosely maps to fields like scenes, visual_style, duration, templateId, and render_format, but it does not clarify the `brief`, `energy`, `frame_rate`, or the nested scene structure. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a canonical, explainable motion-graphics video blueprint.' It further clarifies that creation does not mutate After Effects, which helps distinguish it from sibling creation tools like ae_create_composition. The phrase 'shared source of truth' reinforces the tool's planning-stage purpose.

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 description implies this tool is for generating a blueprint before actual After Effects work, especially through 'without mutating After Effects' and 'shared source of truth.' However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related siblings such as ae_validate_motion_blueprint, ae_repair_motion_blueprint, or ae_build_motion_video, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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