create_anim_montage

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further, spelling out exact idempotent semantics (returns unchanged with already_existed=true, saved=false, nothing saved) and the failure mode (success=false, saved=false, save_error). This is concrete behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints, though permissions/version-control nuances are absent.

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 purpose, then idempotency, then a compact Returns block — every sentence carries information. Slightly dense, and the Returns enumeration is lengthy, but nothing is wasted.

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's Returns field list usefully compensates for the missing return documentation, and it covers the idempotent and failed-save paths. It stops short of noting any permission or version-control requirements, but for a creation tool with strong annotation coverage it is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema (name, slot_name, package_path default, skeleton_path). The description only lightly reinforces the location ('under /Game') and adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 specific verb and resource ('Create and save an empty-but-valid UAnimMontage asset') and even scopes the location ('under /Game'). The resource (montage) is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_anim_sequence, create_blend_space, or add_montage_section without opening the schema.

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?

The idempotency note ('a UAnimMontage already at that path is returned unchanged') implicitly tells the agent the call is safe to repeat, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance and no exclusion conditions. Usage context 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.