add_montage_notify

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context: every call appends another event (explaining the non-idempotency), the montage is saved as a side effect, and a failed save yields success=false with saved=false and save_error. This failure-mode disclosure is genuinely beyond the annotations.

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 constraints, and every clause carries information. However the return information is stated twice (prose 'Returns trigger_time, notify_count and the notifies name list' and then the full object), which is mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly documents return fields and the failure case. It omits whether the montage must already exist or any permission/auth preconditions, but for a mutation tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations this is largely complete.

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 all three params are already documented. The description reinforces that trigger_time is an absolute time and that notify_name is name-only, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so 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 (append) plus resource (a name-only notify event on a UAnimMontage), and the parenthetical 'no UAnimNotify class' plus 'notify track 0' distinguishes it from class-based notify siblings. It also names remove_montage_notify as the inverse operation, so an agent can route confidently.

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 clear context: appends on every call, targets track 0, and routes removal to remove_montage_notify. It does not explicitly contrast with the add-side siblings (add_anim_notify, add_anim_notify_name), so the when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance is implied by the parenthetical rather than stated.

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