animation_add_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear all responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It notes that the tool returns a success message or error, but does not describe side effects (e.g., modification of the scene file), prerequisites (e.g., existing animation), constraints (e.g., maximum tracks), or error conditions. The behavioral transparency is minimal and insufficient for safe agent use.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, category, argument list with brief explanations, and return type. Every sentence is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or filler. The front-loading of the main purpose aids quick comprehension.

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?

Given the five required parameters and no annotations, the description provides basic context (category, args, return). However, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., animation must exist), behavior (e.g., track appended to end), limits (e.g., maximum tracks), and error scenarios (e.g., invalid path). An output schema exists but is not detailed, so more context would be beneficial.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description's parameter explanations are crucial. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as track_type values ('value, method, bezier, audio, animation') and track_path format ('Player:position'). However, it does not elaborate on constraints like valid node paths or animation_name existence, which would further improve semantic clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Add a track') and resource ('to an existing animation'). It lists all arguments and return type, and the category 'Animation' groups it effectively. Among siblings like 'animation_create' and 'animation_set_keyframe', the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool is for adding a track to an existing animation, which implies its use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to add a track versus modify or delete. No when-not-to or alternative tool references are included.

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