motion review start

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

Annotations show this is not read-only but non-destructive and non-idempotent, and the description meaningfully extends that: it returns a persistent review ID to poll until inspection completes, deliberately does not call a paid AI provider, and does not accept the animation. These are real behavioral traits (async job pattern, cost behavior) beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences that each carry information: purpose, return/polling behavior, cost/scope disclaimers, and the VFX question shape. Slightly dense and transitions a bit awkwardly, but there is little pure filler.

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 spelled out, and the description still covers the key operational facts (async polling, no paid AI, no animation upload). The main gap is the undocumented parameters against a 6-param, low-coverage schema, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 only 17%, so the description must carry param meaning and largely fails to: 'preview it' weakly maps to the preview flag and 'timed poses' loosely gestures at motionMode, but brief, rigId, assetId, and sessionId are untouched. An agent gets little help understanding the six parameters from the prose.

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 specific verbs (inspect, preview, prepare user feedback questions) on a clear resource (an animation), and the sibling-adjacent phrase 'read it until inspection completes' distinguishes it from motion_review_read and the motion_studio_inspect family. It does not name the alternatives explicitly, but an agent can tell what this tool does.

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?

It implies usage via 'read it until inspection completes' and the note that VFX gets recipe-level questions, so the async flow is somewhat implied. However, it never states when to choose this over motion_studio_inspect or the other review/workflow siblings, nor any prerequisites beyond the schema's sessionId note.

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