gen_uthana_import_animation_to_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add a key behavioral trait: the tool not only imports but also reports remaining retarget/readback gates. However, it omits prerequisites such as Unreal being running, the default require_bridge_ping behavior, or potential side effects of import.

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 front-loaded: one sentence states the action, a KB link gives pipeline context, and a one-line example shows real usage. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. But with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description relies heavily on the KB reference to fill gaps like parameter roles and pipeline sequencing. It is adequate but not self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 for parameter meaning. It only demonstrates local_file in the example, which confirms it is the FBX path, but leaves skeleton, motion_id, character_id, content_path, import_materials, and require_bridge_ping entirely unexplained.

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 a specific action and outcome: 'Import a downloaded Uthana FBX into Unreal and report remaining retarget/readback gates.' This distinguishes it from generic import tools and its sibling import_animation_fbx by naming the Uthana pipeline and the reporting behavior. The example reinforces the exact call shape.

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 implies usage context: it is for a downloaded Uthana FBX and references a KB section for the broader motion-task family. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling import_animation_fbx or when not to use it, leaving the selection partially to inference.

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