add_anim_curve_name

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it runs in an undo transaction, saves the skeleton package, reports specific idempotent result values (added=false, already_existed=true, saved=false), and defines error behavior (unknown skeleton is an error; failed save yields success=false with save_error).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then layers idempotency, alternatives, and error handling. It is dense but each sentence carries distinct information, and the Returns enumeration is warranted because no output schema exists. Slightly long but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and covers the failure and idempotent paths. For a 2-parameter mutation whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is complete enough to call correctly without further probing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the default skeleton when skeleton_path is omitted. The description adds conceptual context (curve metadata on a USkeleton) but no format or naming details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Register a curve name as curve metadata on a USkeleton', and names the underlying engine call. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it adds no keys (unlike add_anim_float_curve) and that remove_anim_curve_name is the inverse.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use add_anim_float_curve to put a keyed float curve on a UAnimSequence, and remove_anim_curve_name for the inverse. It also spells out idempotent behavior so the agent knows a re-run is safe, which is exactly the when-to-use context needed.

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