plan_animation

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by confirming no generation job is launched (no compute spent) and by enumerating the applied defaults for duration, candidates, seed, model, postprocessing and output formats.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the choice and defaults. The trailing default list ('native postprocessing, NPZ and standard-T-pose BVH') references output settings that have no corresponding input parameter, so a small amount of it does not map to anything callable.

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-value explanation is not needed, and the description correctly focuses on inputs and defaults. The gap is start_from, a structured pose-reference parameter whose purpose and constraints an agent must discover from the schema alone.

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 the burden and it only partially does. It maps well to quality, duration_seconds, candidates, seed and model defaults, but the start_from PoseReference parameter is never mentioned, nor are the model enum choices or beat semantics.

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 and resource: turns an action description plus optional timed beats into a generation plan. The line 'No generation is started' effectively draws the boundary against generate_animation/generate_motion, though those siblings are never named.

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?

The 'No generation is started' note implies this is the pre-flight planning step before generate_animation, but that sequencing is left to inference. It never explicitly says when to choose plan_animation over directly calling generate_animation, nor what to do with the resulting plan.

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