validation.foot_drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Risk: read' which is redundant with those annotations. It adds 'maturity: L3' and a note that per-request argument checks and session policy apply, which are operational constraints but not behavioral disclosures about the tool's execution or side effects. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond what annotations already convey.

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 extremely brief, but brevity here comes at the cost of essential information. It does not front-load the tool's purpose or usage; it simply lists risk and maturity metadata. While there is no fluff, the content is so sparse that it provides almost no utility to 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description should explain what the validation checks, how it operates, and what the expected inputs and outputs are. None of this is present. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool, especially given the complex parameter structure and the presence of similar sibling validation tools.

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 only 33%, and the description mentions none of the parameters (armature, bone, frameStart, frameEnd, limit, etc.). It does not explain what these parameters mean, how they relate to foot drift validation, or any format or constraints beyond the schema's basic type declarations. The description completely fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the command as `validation.foot_drift` and declares it a read operation, but it never states what foot drift validation actually does or what it measures. It fails to distinguish this from sibling validation tools like blender_validation_floor_penetration or blender_validation_limb_length, leaving the agent to guess the purpose from the name alone.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, and the description does not reference any sibling tools or conditions that would select this validation over others.

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