add_curve_table_row

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial operational detail that an existing row is replaced, which is finer-grained than the generic destructive flag. It also enumerates the return payload, which reduces uncertainty about the effect.

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?

Two compact sentences: the destructive add-or-replace action is front-loaded and the return contract is stated once without redundancy. No wasted wording.

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 usefully documents the return object including keys, counts, and saved flag. The main residual gap is that it does not mention whether the asset must be saved separately or what permission the operation needs.

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 row_name, curve_table_path, and keys are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'optionally seeding keys' framing and the returned key shape, 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 and resource: add (or replace) a named FRichCurve row in a UCurveTable, with the replace semantics spelled out. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as add_curve_table_key or create_curve_table, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Optionally seeding keys' implies the keys parameter is used when populating a new row, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to the sibling for adding keys to an existing row. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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