insert_anim_graph_slot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the insertion target and intended montage behavior, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the AnimBP is compiled, whether existing slot nodes are affected, or what happens if the named graph does not exist.

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-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, parameter details, a KB pointer, and an example. It is efficient overall, though the KB pointer and example are slightly redundant with the prose.

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 tool has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the main action, parameter semantics, and a practical example. Missing details are preconditions and failure behavior, which would improve completeness for a mutating graph-editing tool with no annotations.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: asset path/name semantics, slot_name default and matching requirement, and graph_name defaulting behavior. This adds substantial value over the bare schema.

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: 'Insert a Slot node on the main AnimGraph between the current pose chain and Root.' This precisely identifies what the tool does and is distinct from sibling animation-graph tools like insert_blend_bool_fire_before_slot and add_animation_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?

The description explicitly explains when to use the tool: 'Use this so PlaySlotAnimationAsDynamicMontage / montages targeting the same slot name layer aim and fire animations over locomotion from the state machine.' It defines a clear use case but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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