motion_roll_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says clips are saved under new names but doesn't disclose whether originals are preserved, whether this requires an existing FBX file, what permissions are needed, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, stating the main action. However, it's so terse that it omits necessary details for correct invocation, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral safety, or expected results. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without guessing.

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. It mentions 'suffix' and the naming pattern (<name>_<suffix>), which adds some meaning for one parameter. But 'side', 'degrees', 'fbx_files', and 'out_folder' are not explained at all. The description doesn't clarify what 'rolled' means with respect to 'degrees' or 'side'.

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 states a specific operation on clips ('a set of clips rolled, each from its own start, saved under new names'), which is more specific than the name alone. However, it does not differentiate from sibling motion_roll or explain what 'rolled' means operationally. It's vague enough that an agent can't be sure of the exact transformation.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus motion_roll, motion_track, or motion_roll_profile. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no context. The description implies a batch operation but doesn't say when it's appropriate.

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