scaffold_locomotion_animbp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description largely restates idempotency, though 'returns the existing scaffold' does add the concrete consequence. The important operational hazard (refusal during a Play-in-Editor session, which lives in the force param description) is not surfaced in the tool description, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by idempotency behavior and an inline return-shape list. It is efficient and every element relates to invocation, though the return-object enumeration is a little dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so inlining the return object (anim_blueprint_path, state_count, already_existed, saved, etc.) usefully closes that gap. With 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke correctly; the only real omission is surfacing the PIE-session refusal in the main description rather than only inside the force parameter.

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 seven parameters, including defaults and the extensive force/PIE warning. The description's mention of 'Locomotion', 'Idle/Walk/Run', and 'bidirectional transitions' loosely maps to machine_name, states, and add_transitions, but adds no syntax or constraint detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (create/update) and a well-scoped resource: an Animation Blueprint with a Locomotion state machine, Idle/Walk/Run states, and bidirectional transitions. This composite scope is clear enough to distinguish it from single-purpose siblings, but it never names or contrasts with relatives like create_anim_blueprint or build_animation_state_machine, so it falls short of an explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: you would call this to scaffold a locomotion AnimBP. The description does note idempotent re-run behavior ('re-running on an existing AnimBP returns the existing scaffold'), which is a usage hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the alternative animation tools that overlap with this one.

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