motion library save

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

Adds useful context beyond annotations: units for positions/rotations/key times, and the lineage-preserving role of parentId. Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false), so no contradiction. But it does not disclose validation failure behavior, whether saving overwrites an existing recipe, or any side effects beyond saving.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the lineage tip and unit definitions. No wasted words, and the key information is immediately accessible.

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?

For a complex tool with two recipe variants and an optional revision parameter, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: it does not mention what the output (return value) represents, error handling, or validation rules beyond 'validate.' The output schema likely covers return structure, but the description could still clarify expected outcomes. Given the complexity, more guidance on when to use this vs. studio-specific saves would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of parentId (revision lineage) and the unit system for recipe fields. It does not explain the difference between the animation and vfx variants, nor the meaning of fields like 'kind' or 'tracks' beyond what the schema constraints imply. Partial compensation for a complex nested schema.

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 clear verb-resource: 'Validate and save a custom recipe or revised recipe.' It distinguishes from read-only siblings (motion_library_list/read) and from studio-specific saves by mentioning 'library' and 'revision lineage.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with motion_studio_save_animation or motion_studio_save_vfx, which could overlap.

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?

Only hints at one usage condition: 'Supply parentId to preserve revision lineage.' It does not say when to prefer this over motion_studio_save_animation/vfx or motion_animation_create/vfx_create, nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is the right choice.

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