motion studio connect parts

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: it creates a Motor6D, preserves rest positions and anchoring, and rejects certain conflicting states. These go beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints are false.

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 concise, using four short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add relevant constraints. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 description provides enough context for an agent to understand the main operation, constraints, and the conditional sessionId requirement. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value details is acceptable, though a bit more clarity on the name parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that parentPart and childPart are uniquely named parts and that pivot is a world-space position in studs, but the name parameter's purpose remains implicit and the optional nature of pivot is not 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a Motor6D between two uniquely named parts, which is a specific action and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like motion_studio_sessions or motion_studio_inspect.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool by defining the action and constraints such as rejecting cycles, existing child motors, and conflicting welds. It also notes the conditional sessionId requirement, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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