set_anim_graph_node_property

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it saves the ABP without recompiling, warns the agent about a required follow-up, and discloses the return shape. The significant PIE-refusal behavior lives in the schema, not the description, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical workflow caveat and return shape. 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states the return object shape and the save-without-compile semantic. It could say where node_id comes from or mention the PIE refusal that the schema carries, but for an 8-param write tool it is nearly complete.

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 every parameter (force, value, value_json, graph_name, blueprint_name alias, etc.) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the '(dotted) name' hint for property, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Write), resource (a property of an AnimGraphNode's internal FAnimNode struct), and addressing method (dotted name). It is clearly distinguishable from the read sibling get_anim_graph_node_properties 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?

Gives explicit workflow context: it saves but does not recompile, and instructs running compile_anim_blueprint for runtime effect. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g. reading via get_anim_graph_node_properties or setting pin bindings via set_anim_graph_node_pin_binding), so no true when-not guidance.

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