extract_motion_constraints

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: world root coordinates are retained and the tool does not guarantee seamless transitions. The downstream validation requirement (duration and conflict checks) is information the agent would not otherwise have.

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?

Five short sentences, each load-bearing: capability, input invariant, output property, next step, and exclusion. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the unexplained sample_index parameter and the absence of any pointer to the sibling single-pose extractor.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does add non-obvious invariants for source_frames/target_frames (ordered, unique, equally sized) and implies constraint_type via 'full-body or limb constraint', but job_id and especially sample_index (0-3, presumably sample selection) are never explained.

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+resource: mapping several actual SOMA poses to destination frames, producing one reusable full-body or limb constraint. It distinguishes itself implicitly from singular-pose work by emphasizing 'several' poses, though it never names the sibling extract_pose_constraint, so the differentiation requires inference.

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 a concrete prerequisite ('both frame lists must be ordered, unique and equally sized'), a follow-up workflow ('add the returned constraint to a new request, then validate its duration and all constraint conflicts'), and an exclusion ('does not smooth, resample or splice clips'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use instead for single-pose extraction or for smoothing.

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