motion workflow attach candidate

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: fingerprints on images and artifact, the 2 MB-per-file limit, the 2-12 count range, and 'Preserve old files', which corroborates the non-destructive hint and explains append behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its constraints, and no filler. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies file-count and size limits plus the non-destructive guarantee, leaving only minor gaps around the 'changes' parameter and format expectations.

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 coverage is 40% (only workflowId and revision are documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the evidence sub-fields (view semantics, sample-time semantics) and the artifact path as an existing local file, but leaves the required 'changes' parameter and the file-type/format expectations for artifactPath unexplained.

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 ('Attach') and identifies both the resources involved ('existing local candidate artifact' and '2-12 PNG/JPEG preview files') plus hard limits. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like motion_workflow_read_evidence or motion_workflow_review, but the scope is clear enough to act on.

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 gives in-parameter guidance ('Use distinct views for models/VFX shape, and explicit sample times for motion'), which implies the expected usage context. However, it says nothing about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as motion_workflow_review or motion_workflow_read_evidence, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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