ae_validate_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, and it does disclose the important non-mutating behavior: 'without mutating After Effects.' It also hints at output style with 'explainable coherence checks,' but it does not explain what the checks actually inspect, whether a connection is required, or what happens on failure.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core action, names the resource, and adds the critical safety qualifier. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

For a 1-parameter tool with an open-ended object schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too minimal. Missing context includes what the returned 'explainable' results look like, prerequisites, and how this validation differs from the audit and repair siblings.

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?

The schema has a single 'blueprint' object with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It confirms the tool operates on a 'motion blueprint,' which names the parameter, but it does not clarify the required internal structure of that blueprint or what properties are expected for validation.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Run explainable coherence checks on a motion blueprint' and adds the key non-mutation qualifier 'without mutating After Effects.' It clearly distinguishes itself from mutation-oriented siblings like ae_repair_motion_blueprint, though it does not contrast with the similarly named ae_audit_motion_coverage.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as ae_audit_motion_coverage or ae_repair_motion_blueprint. The 'without mutating' phrase implies a safe validation use case, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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