godot_configure_animation_tree

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. The description only says 'Setup', which implies modification but does not mention that the tool can create new AnimationTree nodes, modify existing ones, or optionally save a resource file (as implied by parameters like 'node_path' and 'save_as_resource_path'). This lack of behavioral detail could lead an agent to misuse the tool (e.g., assuming it only works on an existing node or unaware of resource saving). The description is not contradictory, but it is significantly incomplete.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action directly. There is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose name already conveys the subject. However, given the tool's complexity, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, which slightly lowers the score from 5.

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 tool is complex (8 parameters, possible creation vs. reuse, optional resource saving) and has no output schema or annotations to supplement the description. The description only provides a high-level summary and omits critical context such as whether the tool creates a new AnimationTree, requires an existing one, saves resources, or what the return value represents. This is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without diving into the schema details, which may not be immediately accessible at selection time.

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%, meaning the tool description mentions none of the parameters. The rule states that with low coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not. The schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each field (e.g., states, transitions, tree_type), but the description adds nothing about parameters. An agent cannot learn from the description what inputs are needed or what they control, relying solely on the schema. This is a severe gap given the complexity of the configuration.

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 states a specific action ('Setup') and targets a specific resource (AnimationTree) with concrete sub-objectives (state machines, blend spaces, transitions). This clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like godot_scaffold_state_machine or godot_create_animation, which could overlap in scope. A 4 is appropriate because the verb+resource is specific but the distinction from alternatives is not explicit.

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 tool versus alternatives such as godot_scaffold_state_machine or godot_create_animation. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and schema.

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