set_animation_speed

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare destructive/non-readOnly/idempotent), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: the component tick is switched on as a side effect, the change is transient and not undoable, out-of-range speed or a missing component is an error, and success must be verified via speed_set_successfully. This is well past what the annotations carry.

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 action and its mode gate before the alternatives and return contract. The language is dense but every clause carries distinct information; the long Returns block is justified since there is no output schema, though it is verbose enough to keep this from a 5.

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 carries the return contract and does so explicitly (all fields enumerated), and it also covers error conditions, the mode gate, world selection and transience. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the result 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: component_name resolves to the first matching actor ('the first actor in the world that has one with that name wins') and names the world selector's role. It adds duplicate-resolution semantics the schema description does not state.

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 states a precise verb+resource ('set the play rate of a skeletal mesh component') and immediately scopes it ('found by object name in the editor world'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling montage path by naming play_animation and set_anim_montage_rate_scale, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

It gives explicit when-it-works conditions ('Only a component in Use Animation Asset (single node) mode takes it'), the failing case and its signal ('in Animation Blueprint mode nothing changes and actual_speed reads 0, so check speed_set_successfully'), and names the alternatives for montages. Nothing 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.