add_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the fact that it mutates an animation. It does not say whether the call persists immediately, whether it is undoable, what permissions or project state are required, or what happens if the event name is unknown. The event-type examples are the only added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical examples are the one detail worth keeping. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of coverage captured in other dimensions.

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, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is well short of what an agent needs to call it correctly. The payload parameters and the required Spine/event-name preconditions are entirely undocumented.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Nothing explains the required name/time/project/animation, nor the meaning or default behavior of string, int_value, and float_value payload fields, which are entirely opaque despite being the mechanism for passing event data.

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 ('Fire a Spine event') plus the resource and scope ('in an animation'), and the parenthetical examples (SFX cue, rollup start/stop, particle trigger) concretely illustrate what an event is. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling rigging/mesh tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearest neighbors like add_keys or clip_set.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as add_keys or other animation-authoring tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether the animation/clip must already exist, or whether the event name must be predefined in Spine). 'In an animation' is the only implied context.

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