validation.motion_discontinuity

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' and 'maturity: L3' and notes session policy requirements, which are minor additions beyond the annotations but do not disclose output behavior or side effects.

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 brief but not structured effectively. It wastes space on metadata (risk, maturity) while omitting the core purpose and parameter guidance. The format is a flat statement without prioritization of essential 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?

With 9 parameters (5 required), no parameter descriptions, and a sibling family of validation tools, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine the tool's function, the meaning of its inputs, or when to use it. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of basic semantic context.

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% (only internal params like _requestId have descriptions). The required parameters (angleLimitDegrees, frameStart, frameEnd, object, positionLimit) are not described in the schema, and the description provides no meaning for them. The agent has no way to know what these parameters represent or how to set them.

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 name 'validation.motion_discontinuity' and lists risk/maturity metadata, but never states what the tool actually does. It fails to convey that this validates motion discontinuity in an animation, making it indistinguishable from sibling validation tools like blender_validation_floor_penetration.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative validation commands. The description only mentions per-request argument checks and session policy, which are generic requirements, not usage context.

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