motion workflow start

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, lowering the bar. The description still adds substantive context beyond that: it preserves the request and emits stage guidance for the connected AI, clarifying this is a planning/persistence step rather than asset production.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then output behavior, then the boundary. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 explained. However, for a tool whose lone parameter is a complex nested required object, the description leaves agent-critical detail (brief structure) uncovered, making it only minimally viable.

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 single 'brief' parameter is a deeply nested object with seven required sub-fields, and top-level schema description coverage is 0%. The description only alludes to 'the request' and gives no insight into structure, required fields, or the kind enum, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Start') and resource (reference-driven model, animation or VFX authoring), which is distinguishable from direct generation siblings like motion_animation_create or motion_vfx_create. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the scope is clear.

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 clause 'Does not generate assets or call a separate AI' provides a clear exclusion, telling the agent this is the brief/planning stage rather than execution. It stops short of routing to the sibling that would perform actual generation, so no explicit when-to-use pointer.

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