animation_tree_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the core behavior of each operation and the canonical call shape, including the compatibility alias for flat parameters. But it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or distinguish mutating operations from the read-only get_tree_info beyond the verb itself.

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 well structured. It front-loads the domain, then presents each operation in a scannable bullet list with signatures and brief explanations. The canonical call shape note is useful and not redundant, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 multi-operation tool, the description covers the main requirements: available operations, their parameters, and the invocation shape. An output schema exists and can cover return values, which the description need not duplicate. Missing end-to-end examples or failure behavior are minor gaps given the otherwise clear operation-level documentation.

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?

The input schema is opaque at 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing each operation's parameters inline with defaults and enough context to understand their purpose, such as parent_path, anim_player_path, auto_advance, and position. Some details remain unspecified, such as exact tree_path notation or position coordinate format, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 tool's domain: AnimationTree state machine and blend tree managementsell. It enumerates five concrete operations with verbs like 'scaffold', 'add', and 'inspect', so an agent can see exactly what actions are available. It differentiates from sibling tools by resource type (AnimationTree), though it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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?

Usage is implied through the operation list: each bullet explains what that sub-operation does/dss, so an agent can infer when to call scaffold_state_machine vs scaffold_blend_tree etc. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like animation_manage or fsm_manage, and no exclusions or alternative routes are stated.

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