set_animation_for_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool 'assigns' and describes parameters. It does not mention mutation consequences, asset requirements, whether existing assignments are overwritten, or any side effects on the animation blueprint.

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 with the purpose, followed by a clean parameter list, a KB pointer, and a useful example. Every section earns its place, though the KB pointer is too vague to substitute for inline guidance.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description gives the minimum viable information: parameters, a KB reference, and an invocation example. It lacks usage context, behavioral caveats, and error expectations, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 five parameters with brief explanations and provides a concrete example, but most explanations just restate the parameter titles (e.g., 'Animation Blueprint name' and 'State machine name'). The only meaningful semantic addition is calling animation_asset an 'Animation Sequence asset path' and the example showing expected asset path format.

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 action ('Assign an animation sequence') and a specific resource ('State Machine state'), so an agent can understand the core operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_animation_state or add_sequence_player_node, but the wording is clear enough to identify the intended use.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_animation_state or add_sequence_player_node. It includes an example and a KB pointer, but neither explains the selection criteria or exclusions.

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