create_motion_review

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, non-open-world write operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context — outputs are offline/static, sampling is uniform over the timeline, extrema are highlighted, and camera bounds are fixed over the whole clip. It omits where artifacts land, whether the job must be finished, and any cost/latency, which matters for a generation-style tool.

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?

Two short sentences, artifact list front-loaded, no filler. Slightly compressed jargon ('fixed whole-clip camera bounds') costs a little clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the artifact list plus annotation profile cover the core. Still, for a 3-parameter creation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the missing parameter explanations and missing usage routing leave real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters: the required job_id, the output name/filename, or the thresholds object. The QualityThresholds $defs carries its own description, but the description under review does nothing to explain how job_id or name are used or what the threshold knobs affect in the review output.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: an offline three-view player, an exact-frame contact sheet, and a numerical diagnostic file. That is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as preview_motion, inspect_motion_frames, or analyze_motion_quality.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling inspection/preview/quality tools, and no stated preconditions (e.g. whether the job must be complete before a review can be created). 'Offline' hints at a distinction, but the agent must infer it.

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