generate_motion

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

Annotations already declare it is non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is asynchronous ('Queue ... and return a job ID immediately') and may download model weights if operator-enabled. It does not describe job polling or lifecycle details, but this is a strong addition given annotation coverage.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place, though the terseness contributes to gaps covered under other dimensions.

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?

The schema is highly complex with one required nested request object and many undocumented fields, and there is an output schema. The description only covers async queueing and possible weight downloads; it omits how to use the returned job ID, what job states to expect, and how the many request fields affect generation.

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 tool has a complex nested request object with many fields, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description gives no parameter guidance at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Queue motion generation' and says it returns a job ID immediately. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as generate_animation, plan_animation, or validate_motion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_animation, plan_animation, or validate_motion. The purpose implies motion generation, but the agent must infer the workflow and selection criteria.

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