set_anim_root_motion

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that omitted params reset to defaults, that an unknown root lock name silently applies RefPose while echoing the given text, that a no-op returns changed=false/saved=false without touching the asset, and that a failed save returns success=false with save_error. This is exactly the destructive/idempotent nuance an agent needs.

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 core action, then the important edge-case semantics, then return fields. Dense but almost every clause earns its place; the 'Returns:' inventory is somewhat list-like though it is useful given there is no output schema.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the write semantics, default-reset behavior, no-op detection, and failure reporting, and enumerates the return fields. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it 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% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning on top: default values for omitted fields, the reset-on-omit semantics, and the fallback behavior for an unrecognized root lock string. It stops short of documenting input formats beyond what the schema already carries.

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 ('Write the three root motion settings of a UAnimSequence') and names the exact fields written (bEnableRootMotion, RootMotionRootLock, bForceRootLock). An agent immediately knows what the tool mutates.

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 establishes clear usage context by explaining that all three settings are written on every call and that omitted values reset to defaults, which tells the agent how to invoke it. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. get_anim_sequence_info) or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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