add_montage_segment

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

Annotations cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, so the description's extra value is modest. It adds useful failure semantics—a failed save yields success=false, saved=false, and save_error—and previews the return structure, which goes 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?

Two front-loaded sentences followed by a return-field list. The content is mostly tight, though the failure sentence partially duplicates the success/saved/save_error fields in the Returns list.

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?

For a montage mutation with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the operation, failure behavior, and return shape. It still omits prerequisites (montage/slot existence) and what happens if slot_name is omitted.

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 parameter documentation is already complete; the description only restates that the segment references a UAnimSequence and targets a montage slot. It adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema, so 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 precise verb (Append) and resource (animation segment referencing a real UAnimSequence) plus its target (montage slot). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_montage_section, add_montage_slot, and add_montage_notify, and from set_montage_segment_anim_sequence, which modifies an existing segment.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. It never states prerequisites (e.g., that the montage and slot must already exist) or when to choose it over set_montage_segment_anim_sequence.

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