remove_anim_notify

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the change runs inside an undo transaction, that the asset is saved automatically, that a non-matching name is a non-destructive success (removed=false, already_absent=true, sequence not dirtied or saved), and that a failed save yields success=false with save_error. That is exactly the extra context destructiveHint alone cannot convey.

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 the action and target, followed by edge-case semantics; every clause carries distinct information. The second sentence is long and run-on, but nothing is padding.

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 supplies the full return shape (animation_path, notify_name, removed, removed_count, already_absent, saved, save_error) plus success/failure branching, and the annotations already cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that removal is by name and that all matching events are removed (hence removed_count), but adds no syntax, path format, or naming convention detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 (remove every notify event whose NotifyName matches), names the resource (UAnimSequence) and even the underlying API (RemoveAnimationNotifyEventsByName). An agent can distinguish it from siblings such as remove_notify_track, remove_montage_notify and edit_anim_notify without opening any 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 description makes the usage situation inferable (deleting name-matched notify events on a sequence asset) and details the not-found and save-failure branches, but it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer remove_notify_track / remove_montage_notify / edit_anim_notify instead. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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