validate_motion_spec

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds that it looks for 'concrete implementation mistakes,' hinting at findings-style output, but says nothing about what is reported, severity, or how failures are surfaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though for a validator taking 10 parameters the terseness starts to shade into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it doesn't — it never says what a finding looks like or what 'concrete implementation mistakes' encompasses. For a 10-parameter validation tool with non-obvious constructs like source-media claims, one sentence is not enough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, all 8 required parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by naming four parameter clusters (typography, source-media claims, export assets, timing) that map loosely onto headlinePx/bodyPx/controlPx, media/requiresSourceZip/claimsGeneratedSubjectVideo, files, and duration/fps — but it gives no units, formats, or valid-value guidance.

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 verb 'Check' plus the enumeration of what is checked (typography, source-media claims, export assets, timing) gives a specific, recognizable purpose as a spec-validation tool. It stands reasonably apart from siblings like validate_asset_manifest and check_motion_accessibility, though it never names or contrasts them, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 statement of when to run this versus alternatives such as validate_asset_manifest or plan_launch_preflight, no prerequisites, and no indication of where it belongs in the pipeline. The only signal is the implicit 'validate before shipping' framing, which the agent must infer.

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