motion_publish_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that this publishes a parameter and where it becomes visible, and it clarifies the provenance of object_id and channel. However, it does not mention side effects, whether a project must be open, or what happens on invalid inputs. It gives useful context but not complete behavioral transparency.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose before the technical example. It is efficient and every sentence contributes useful information, though the example adds some complexity that could be formatted more cleanly.

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 a clear purpose, a concrete example, and a discovery strategy for object_id and channel. However, it lacks definitions for the path and name parameters, does not describe the return value or error behavior, and offers no guidance on prerequisites like having a Motion template open. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It offers a concrete example for object_id and channel, but it entirely omits descriptions for 'path' and 'name', which are also required. This leaves half the parameters undefined and requires the agent to guess or infer their meaning.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Publish an internal parameter as a rig control') and names the exact context (Final Cut Pro's Inspector) and resource (internal parameter). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like motion_unpublish_parameter or motion_list_rig.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool (to expose a rig control) and provides a practical method for discovering the correct object_id and channel values via motion_list_rig. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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