add_montage_slot

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

With annotations only supplying the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description carries the real behavioral burden: it runs inside an undo transaction and saves, the already-exists path is a no-op with added=false/already_existed=true/saved=false, and a failed save yields success=false with save_error. That is far richer than the annotations. Note a mild tension with idempotentHint=false, since the re-add path is described as causing no modification or save – but that could simply reflect the transaction/save side effects, so it is not a hard contradiction.

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-loads the core action and the duplicate-handling rule, then the workflow, then the return contract. Information density is high with little waste, though the first sentence is long and packs scope, transaction, and save semantics into one clause.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and the error shape (success=false, saved=false, save_error), plus the idempotent edge case. It omits preconditions such as whether the montage asset must already be loaded or writable, which is the only notable gap.

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% and both params carry examples ('UpperBody', '/Game/MyGame/AM_Example'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion that slot_name identifies a slot track, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 an empty slot animation track ... to a UAnimMontage') and names the exact next step (add_montage_segment) and inverse (remove_montage_slot), so an agent can place it precisely among the many montage_* siblings.

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 the sequencing rule ('Fill it with add_montage_segment') and the inverse operation, which tells the agent where this fits in a workflow. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or how it relates to neighboring siblings like add_montage_section or add_anim_slot_group.

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