add_animation_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation and parameter meanings. It does not mention side effects, whether existing states are overwritten, required preconditions, or error behavior.

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 compact and logically structured with an Args block, a KB reference, and an example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids excessive prose, though the example is somewhat repetitive.

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?

The KB link and output schema help, but the description still lacks critical context for confident use: prerequisites, whether the state machine must already exist, failure modes, and relationship to sibling animation-state tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to avoid common mistakes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with minimal labels and marks animation_asset as 'Optional animation sequence asset path,' and gives state_name examples. However, most descriptions restate the parameter names and do not provide path/format guidance beyond one example.

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 identifies the action and target: 'Add an animation state to a State Machine.' It is specific enough to distinguish from related siblings like add_state_machine and add_state_transition, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from set_animation_for_state.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives an example and parameter list but does not explain whether the state machine must already exist, when to prefer this over set_animation_for_state, or what prerequisites apply.

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