place_anim_notify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that this mutates an animation asset, but says nothing about whether the asset must be open, whether changes are saved/persisted, what happens to existing notifies, or whether special permissions are needed. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the usage rationale follows, and the parameter block is necessary given 0% schema coverage. No filler sentences, though the layout could be slightly tighter.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter block is adequate. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits sibling differentiation and persistence/save semantics, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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, and it largely does: it documents all four parameters including a concrete asset-path example, that time is in seconds, that sound is optional, and the default for notify_name. Minor imprecision remains (path format conventions, SoundBase vs. other asset types), but coverage is solid.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (place an AnimNotify_PlaySound on an animation) with a scoping detail (at a specific time), which is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling place_bp_anim_notify, leaving the agent to guess which notify-placement tool applies to a given asset type.

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?

It offers a strong contextual hint by calling itself 'the proper way to sync sounds to animation frames' with a footstep example, which implies preferred usage. But it names no alternative (notably place_bp_anim_notify) and states no when-not condition, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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