add_widget_animation

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 states it 'adds' an animation, implying modification of the widget blueprint, but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., widget existence), error conditions, or whether a save/compile is required. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, a brief explanation of animation utility, a parameter list, a KB reference, and an example. Each section adds value with no redundant text. The example is particularly helpful for path formatting. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary but still efficient.

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 description covers essential parameters and provides an example, but it lacks information on return values, error handling, whether the widget blueprint must be saved/compiled afterward, and what happens on duplicate animation names. Given the tool modifies blueprints and has no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 fully explain parameters. It does so with an Args list covering all 7 parameters, including example values for animation_name and animated_property, units for duration, and default semantics for loop. This thoroughly compensates for the schema gap.

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 it adds a UMG Widget Animation to animate widget properties over time. It distinguishes from sibling tools that add widgets (e.g., add_text_block_to_widget) or set properties directly (widget_set_property) by focusing on animation. The examples of fades, slides, and scale effects further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 some context that animations are useful for smooth fades, slides, and scale effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like widget_set_property or when not to use it. The mention of PlayAnimation/StopAnimation is about post-creation triggering, not tool selection. No explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are given.

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