spine_add_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the event is triggerable from animations, but says nothing about what happens on duplicate names, whether the setup pose is captured from current state, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and each arg line adds a small amount of meaning. No filler, though the bare Args list reads as docstring residue rather than deliberate structure.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a mutation tool with 8 params and zero annotation coverage, the description omits duplicate handling, project prerequisite behavior, and what 'setup-pose values' means operationally — gaps an agent would need filled.

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 does so partially by explaining six of eight params, notably adding the -1..1 range for balance and the audio/volume relationship, which the schema lacks. However, 'name' and 'project' — both required — get no explanation, and 'setup-pose values' is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Define a named event') and clarifies what an event is (setup-pose values triggered by animations). It is distinguishable from sibling add_* tools by the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with spine_add_animation or spine_set_keyframes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of spine_add_animation, when an event is preferable to keyframes, or any prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist and be open). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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