remove_anim_conduit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it removes the conduit’s bound rule subgraph, reports cascaded_transitions_removed, already_absent, saved, and save_error, which reveals cascade deletion and an asset-save attempt. It still omits permissions and undoability details.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then supplies the return shape in a compact, high-value block. With no output schema, the Returns object earns its place, and there is 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?

For a destructive animation-graph mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return contract and the cascade behavior. The schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, though the description still lacks usage guidance and does not clarify why anim_blueprint_path is not required.

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 the schema already documents all parameters, including the force/PIE warning and the blueprint_name alias. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a conduit node... from a state machine,' and adds scope by noting it also removes the bound rule subgraph. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as remove_anim_transition or remove_transition, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives like remove_anim_transition, and no prerequisites. The purpose implies a use case, but there is no explicit routing or exclusion guidance.

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