validate_motion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes 'offline', which usefully tells the agent no job or credits are consumed. It does not say whether validation fails fast or accumulates all errors, nor whether it blocks downstream calls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the validation scope is enumerated immediately after the verb. Terseness borders on under-specification given the schema's complexity, but nothing in the sentence 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 and annotations cover safety, so those burdens are lifted. However, with a deeply nested, 0%-documented request object and no output-schema-free guidance on the preflight workflow, an agent cannot tell from the description alone what to pass or what a pass/fail means.

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% for a single structured 'request' parameter that embeds the full GenerateRequest payload, including segments, model enum, and a 32-item typed constraint union. The description never states that the argument is a generation request, so an agent must read the schema to learn that. It compensates slightly by naming categories (segments, model, frame ranges, constraints) that map onto the request's fields, but adds no constraints or formatting detail. Below the usual 3 baseline for a one-param tool.

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?

Uses a specific verb (validate) with four named validation targets: text segments, model compatibility, frame ranges, and kinematic constraints. The word 'offline' signals this is a preflight check rather than a generation run, which separates it from generate_motion. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

No statement of when to call this instead of generate_motion, or that it is a dry-run to be run *before* generation. 'Offline' is the only hint and it is doing a lot of implicit work. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do with the result.

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