dancemoves_validate_motion_capture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a local, non-mutating operation. The description adds the useful scope constraint that it neither captures nor uploads data, but says nothing about what 'validation' actually checks, whether failures are raised or returned, or whether validation is cheap or expensive.

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; the verb and resource come first and the exclusion follows. It is efficient, though given the undocumented nested parameter the terseness comes at the cost of missing necessary detail.

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 values need not be explained. But the sole parameter is an opaque nested object with no properties and no description, and the description does not compensate, so the definition is not sufficient for a correct invocation even though the tool itself is conceptually simple.

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?

There is a single required parameter, 'capture', typed only as a bare object with zero schema description coverage and no declared properties. The description does not clarify whether 'capture' is an inline payload, a path, a job/artifact identifier, or which fields a bounded capture must contain, leaving the caller unable to construct a valid call.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('an existing bounded motion capture'), so an agent knows the operation without opening the schema. It also names the DanceMoves family, distinguishing it from the danceflow/stemlab siblings, though it does not contrast with the two closest siblings (dancemoves_validate_page_config, dancemoves_validate_timing_file) beyond the differing resource.

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 sensor capture or upload' is a genuine exclusion that rules out an acquisition use case, which is useful routing information. However, there is no positive when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. capture must already exist / be registered), and no explicit pointer to an alternative when the agent does need to capture or upload.

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