build_animator_controller

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world). The description discloses it builds a .controller file (job) and makes characters animated, but does not mention side effects like overwriting existing files or permission requirements. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy but packs essential information: purpose, example spec, and integration instructions. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every part is useful, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description implies the output is a .controller file. It provides integration guidance with 'build_scene'. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, asset path). Given the tool's complexity and missing output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It extensively explains the 'spec' parameter with a detailed example including parameters, states, transitions, and condition modes. The 'project_path' parameter is standard and implied by context. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool builds an Animator Controller with states, parameters, and transitions, making characters animated. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_animation_clip' which creates a single clip, while this builds the controller.

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 specific usage instructions: after building the controller, use 'build_scene' to attach it to an Animator. It gives an example spec. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context is implied.

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