Generate Animations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description earns credit by bounding the destruction ('Replaces only the named preset clips') and clarifying that speed/intensity are non-destructive ('do not rebuild the model'). It does not restate idempotency, but that is covered by the request_id doc in the schema.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero filler, with the object and the replacement scope front-loaded. Every clause (validation prerequisite, approval gate, clip scoping, non-rebuild note) carries distinct information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the prerequisite and the destructive scope, leaving only minor gaps such as which sibling produces the 'validated mapped humanoid'.

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 coverage is 50%: request_id is well documented in the schema, but the nested options (clips/speed/intensity) have no field descriptions. The description partially compensates by naming idle/walk/attack as the clip presets, but adds no semantics for speed or intensity ranges/effects, so it is only baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (propose) and resource (native idle/walk/attack keyframes) with the target object (a validated mapped humanoid). It does not name the nearest sibling preview_animation, so the agent must infer that this generates/replaces clips while preview only inspects them.

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?

'for a validated mapped humanoid' gives an explicit prerequisite, and 'after approval' signals the gating step before this runs. It stops short of naming alternatives like preview_animation or validate_asset, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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