add_anim_notify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('Add') but does not state side effects, whether the asset must be loaded/saved first, reversibility, validation of notify_name against the AnimBP, or failure behavior. The KB reference is a pointer, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a clean Args list, a KB reference, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the action and every element adds value, though the example partially duplicates the args list.

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 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, provides an example, and links to KB documentation. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Gaps remain in error conditions and prerequisites (e.g., what happens if animation_path is invalid or the asset is unsaved), but the core calling contract is adequately specified.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates: it documents all five parameters with real meaning — path format with example ('/Game/Characters/Run.Run'), notify_name semantics ('Event name to trigger from the AnimBP'), units for time, allowed values for notify_type, and purpose of notify_state_duration. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., not explicitly stating notify_state_duration is ignored for 'notify').

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 specific verb and resource: 'Add an Anim Notify or Notify State to an Animation Sequence or Montage.' This precisely differentiates the tool from animation siblings like anim_add_branching_point, anim_add_montage_slot, and add_animation_state without needing to open schemas. The resource type and target asset class are both explicit.

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 provides an example call and a KB pointer, which implies usage, but it never states when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., anim_add_branching_point, anim_add_montage_slot) or when not to use it. No exclusions or selection criteria are given, so an agent must infer context from the example alone.

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