build_motion_recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, and 'Generate' is consistent with them. The description adds useful context that the generated example always includes reduced-motion handling and stated timing assumptions, but it says nothing about output format, length, or whether the result is code-only or includes prose.

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; every clause (language targets, reduced-motion, timing assumptions) carries information. It is under-specified rather than padded, which is the right kind of brevity for a one-liner.

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 code-generation tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description should explain the shape of the returned example and what each pattern/platform choice yields. It gives the high-level intent but leaves the agent guessing about enums, defaults, and output form.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: 'reduced-motion handling' and 'explicit timing assumptions' only loosely gesture at reducedMotion and durationMs. The three pattern enum values and two platform values are never explained, nor is the 100–1200ms bound or the reducedMotion default.

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 specific verb (generate) and resource (SwiftUI or Compose motion example) plus the qualities the output must have (reduced-motion handling, explicit timing). An agent can distinguish it from list_motion_recipes or analyze_transition, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing about when to call this versus list_motion_recipes or analyze_transition, no prerequisites, and no note on when the optional parameters should be supplied. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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