add_anim_notify

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses that the notify track is created when missing, that each call appends another event (explaining the non-idempotent behavior), and that a failed save yields success=false with saved=false and save_error. It does not cover undo/permissions or whether the asset must be open, so it falls short of exhaustive disclosure.

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 purpose and alternatives are front-loaded in a tight two-sentence body, which is well structured. 'Returns time and success' is redundant with the later 'Returns:' block, costing a little efficiency.

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 supplies the return shape itself ({ animation_path, notify_name, time, success, saved, save_error, message }). Combined with the track-creation side effect, error handling, and save-failure semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this mutation correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the AnimNotify_ prefix fallback and default track name. The description adds no extra parameter detail; a 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: adding an instance of a UAnimNotify class at a time on a UAnimSequence notify track. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by name (add_montage_notify for montages, add_anim_notify_state for durations), so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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 explicitly routes the agent: 'For montages use add_montage_notify; for durations add_anim_notify_state,' which names the alternatives and the condition that selects them. It also flags the failure condition of an unknown class, giving a clear when-not boundary.

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