reimport_anim_sequence

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: automated (no dialogs), unsaved, and crash-avoidance via refusing a missing source, plus failure semantics (success=false with reimported=false, note for missing source). It does not detail permissions or the exact on-disk 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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then the scope caveat, then failure behavior, ending with a compact Returns line. Dense but every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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, but the description supplies the return shape ({ anim_sequence_path, source_file_path, reimported, source_validated, note? }) and enumerates the two failure modes, so an agent knows how to interpret the result. Complete enough for a 2-param mutation tool; only the persistence/save implication of 'unsaved' could be spelled out further.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of source_file_path and the 'first recorded source' fallback mirrors what the schema already says, adding no new syntax or format detail. 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 (reimport) and resource (UAnimSequence), plus a useful scope clarification that the class is not actually checked and any reimportable asset works. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling reimport_asset / interchange_reimport_asset, which is the main residual ambiguity.

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?

Explains the source-resolution default (source_file_path or the first recorded source) and that the operation is automated/no-dialog, which is implied usage context. It never names when to prefer this over reimport_asset or interchange_reimport_asset, so the agent gets no explicit routing guidance.

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