add_anim_notify_name

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false): it discloses the undo-transaction wrapping, that the skeleton package is saved, the exact idempotent-like outcome for an already-registered name (added=false, already_existed=true, saved=false, no save occurs), and the failure contract via 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 effect, then the special-case and failure paths. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the final 'Returns:' line repeats field names that the preceding sentences already introduced.

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 fully covers the return field list, the already-existed path, and the save-failure path, and supplies the default asset path. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's default-skeleton note largely restates the skeleton_path schema description. No new syntax or constraint information is added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (register) and a precise resource (a notify name in the AnimationNotifies list of a USkeleton), plus scoping details like the undo transaction and package save. It does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling add_anim_notify, so an agent cannot tell which to pick without opening both 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?

Usage is implied by describing the registered-name and default-skeleton behavior, and the default path fallback is spelled out. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, and the sibling add_anim_notify is never mentioned, which is a real ambiguity given the naming overlap.

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