add_state_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Add a transition' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, whether it validates state existence, overwrites existing transitions, or requires the blueprint to be loaded. No error handling, return value, or permission requirements are mentioned. The KB reference is a pointer, not a 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-sentence purpose, a bullet list of arguments, a KB reference, and an example. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the core action. No redundant text, though it could be slightly tighter by integrating the example more compactly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 4 required, 0% schema coverage) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain preconditions (e.g., state machine must exist), failure behavior, or the output schema. The KB reference helps but is not embedded in the description. The example covers argument format but not edge cases.

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 six parameters with concise explanations (e.g., 'Bool variable to use as transition condition' for condition_variable) and provides a concrete example showing the expected path format. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names, though it could further clarify optionality or format details.

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 a transition between two animation states.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_state_machine and add_animation_state, which handle different aspects of animation blueprints. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing state machine and states) or warn against using it for creating states. The example demonstrates usage but does not clarify selection criteria among the many animation-related sibling tools.

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