validate_action_root_motion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'warns' but does not clarify what that means operationally (e.g., does it return a warning message, modify the scene, or raise an error?). There is no mention of side effects or permissions.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. However, it lacks structure that could include parameter descriptions or usage notes. It is not verbose but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (implied), the description is very short and omits key context: what the output format is, what triggers the warning, and how to interpret results. For a validation tool with 0% schema param coverage, this is insufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It fails to mention either parameter (root_bone and action_name), their purposes, or defaults. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to properly invoke the tool.

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: to warn if a root bone has location keyframes, specifically for in-place RTS locomotion. It uses a specific verb ('warn') and resource ('root bone location keyframes'), and distinguishes from sibling validation tools like validate_rts_asset or validate_scene_scale which have different focuses.

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 implies usage for validating root motion in RTS contexts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_rts_asset or validate_rts_silhouette. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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