motion studio preview

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

The description reveals important side effects beyond the annotations: it creates a temporary clone, fires cues once, leaves the original rig untouched, and is removed by stop. This matches the non-destructive, non-idempotent annotation and adds valuable behavioral detail.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with nested objects, six parameters, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, side effects, and lifecycle. It lacks explicit usage scenarios or parameter details, but the schema and sibling tool names provide enough surrounding context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description adds some parameter meaning—such as no uploaded animation ID being needed and cues firing once—but the schema already covers sessionId, rigId, and jointMap. It does not explain seconds, effects structure, or animationId beyond what the schema provides, and schema description coverage is only 50%.

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's purpose: previewing animation and timed VFX together on a temporary clone without affecting the original rig. It also distinguishes itself by noting no uploaded animation ID is needed and that stop removes the clone, which separates it from save/create tools.

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 provides some usage context—safe preview, no uploaded ID needed, original rig untouched—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like motion_studio_save_animation or motion_studio_stop_preview. It implies a test-before-save workflow but leaves that inference to the reader.

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