scale_anim_curve

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

Annotations already flag a destructive write, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly one undo step, the retiming formula, the no-op contract (applied=false and saved=false with nothing written when no key moves), and the failed-save contract. This is far richer than the annotations alone.

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 and formula, then constraints, edge cases, and the return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the second sentence is dense and slightly run-on with stacked clauses.

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, yet the description enumerates the full return object (applied, saved, save_error, num_keys, message), covers the no-op and save-failure paths, and defines the input restriction. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by giving the exact transform (t - origin) * factor + origin, clarifying that factor acts on TIME not value, and restating the defaults. That goes past the schema's one-line parameter blurbs.

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 — retime a FLOAT curve on a UAnimSequence through its data controller — and preempts a likely misread by explicitly saying it does NOT scale amplitude. An agent can distinguish this from generic anim-curve edits 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?

Provides a clear when-not constraint (transform curves and non-float curves are an error, nothing is written), which is genuinely useful. However it never names an alternative tool (e.g. set_anim_curve_keys for arbitrary key edits) or states when retiming is preferable to manual key edits, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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