unreal_import_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reveal key traits: animation-only, existing skeleton required, no mesh, exported-time length, and no default sample rate. However, it omits side effects such as overwrite behavior, editor-open requirements despite the allowWithEditorOpen parameter, dryRun semantics, and success/failure outcomes.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and pipeline constraints, then mention the post-tuning sibling. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent would need to guess about dryRun defaults, editor-open restrictions, overwrite semantics, and what a successful import returns. The purpose is clear, but operational completeness is lacking.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful context for skeleton (must be existing) and file (animation-only FBX), but it does not explain name, dryRun, timeoutSeconds, or allowWithEditorOpen, leaving several behavior-affecting parameters undocumented.

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 identifies the action: import an animation-only FBX onto an existing skeleton. It specifies the pipeline constraints (no mesh, exported-time length, no default sample rate) and differentiates itself from broader import tools like unreal_import_assets.

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 clear guidance by describing the Trekker pipeline and explicitly pointing to unreal_set_asset_properties for post-tuning. It implies when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly exclude mesh imports or name unreal_import_assets as the alternative.

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