set_anim_additive_settings

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it runs in an undo transaction, saves the asset, treats already-matching settings as a no-op success, and defines failure semantics (success false, saved=false, save_error). This clarifies destructive/idempotent behavior flagged by the hints rather than merely repeating them.

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 core action, then states edge-case behavior and the return shape compactly. Slightly dense but every sentence carries signal; the Returns block earns its place since no output schema exists.

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 fully compensates by enumerating all return fields and defining success/saved/save_error semantics. Combined with the transaction and save behavior, nothing needed to call and interpret the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including enums and defaults like RefPose/LocalSpaceBase) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific verb (Set) and precise resource (additive-animation type and base pose on a UAnimSequence), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It is distinct from adjacent anim tools like set_pose_asset_base_pose, though it never names or excludes a sibling explicitly.

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 through the no-op/failure semantics; it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as set_pose_asset_base_pose or other anim-sequence setters. The idempotency hint (existing settings yield changed=false) gives some context but no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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