export_motion

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: offline CPU execution with no model weights, original job left unchanged, verified-export reuse, and the notable failure mode that an incomplete attempt blocks automatic retries. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from readOnly=false / idempotent=true.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and outputs, with constraints and downstream routing following. The telegraphic one-clause-per-line style is dense but each clause carries real information; no filler sentences.

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 description still calls out export_id's role in the handoff chain. Combined with runtime, idempotency-and-retry, and format-constraint details, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and mostly doesn't. 'Only the source model's formats are accepted' and 'changed options must apply to the selected format' hint that options are format-specific (amass_z_up, bvh_standard_tpose, mujoco_rest_zero) but never map options to formats, and sample_index (a bounded 0-3 selector) is unexplained.

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 ('Convert') plus a specific resource ('completed native NPZ') and enumerates the exact output targets (SOMA BVH, SMPL-X AMASS, G1 MuJoCo CSV). The phrase 'without generation' explicitly separates it from the generate_motion/generate_animation siblings.

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?

Gives clear preconditions ('requires the configured Kimodo runtime', 'only the source model's formats are accepted') and names the downstream step ('Pass the returned export_id to prepare_blender_handoff'). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling inspection tools like inspect_motion or preview_motion, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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