anim_create_montage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful side-effect-relevant details: overwrite replaces an existing asset, save persists after creation, skeleton_path is required when source_animation_path is empty, and source_animation_path seeds the first slot. It does not cover failure modes or folder-creation behavior, but it is substantially transparent for a creation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter list is compact and scannable. The KB reference and example are brief and useful. The length is justified by the 10-parameter surface and the complete absence of schema descriptions.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: all parameters are explained, the required input dependency is called out, and a KB pointer is provided. Minor gaps include no explicit handling of conflict/failure behavior when overwrite is false or when the source path is invalid.

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%, yet the description provides a meaningful gloss for every one of the 10 parameters. It adds value beyond the bare schema by explaining the source/skeleton dependency, the scoping of play_rate and loop_count to the seeded segment, and the role of overwrite and save.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('Animation Montage asset'), and the input sources ('AnimSequence or Skeleton'). This makes its purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like anim_describe_montage, which only inspects an existing montage.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as anim_add_montage_slot or anim_set_montage_section. The creation intent is implied, but the agent is not told when this is the right choice or what conditions would favor a sibling tool.

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