motion_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It does not say whether src_fbx is read-only or mutated, whether out_fbx is overwritten, what happens when axis or seat are omitted (both default to null), or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

It is a single short sentence, which would be praiseworthy for a well-scoped tool, but here the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded statement of action or outcome.

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 six-parameter, four-required tool that consumes and produces FBX files with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis for constructing a correct call or interpreting the result.

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 all six parameters are undocumented. The description alludes to 'axis' and 'seat', which correspond to two optional parameters, but gives no format, unit, or default semantics, and says nothing about src_fbx, out_fbx, bone, or root.

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 phrase 'A sliding part's track rebuilt on its axis from its seat' is a fragmented noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement. It hints at a rebuild operation on a track along an axis, but an agent cannot confidently say what motion_track does or how it differs from motion_roll, motion_roll_set, or rig_part_line.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance anywhere in the description. With roughly ten sibling motion/rig tools, the absence of any routing signal is a serious gap.

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