remove_anim_graph_transition

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 does disclose two real traits: the operation cascades to the transition's conditions, and it returns {"removed": "<id>"}. However it says nothing about persistence (whether save_anim_graph is required), reversibility via undo, or required permissions for a destructive mutation, so significant disclosure is still missing.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is exactly right. The explicit Returns line is partly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and the args block is compact, so waste is minimal.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, params, and return shape. It is still thin on the operational context an agent needs: whether the change is persisted or requires a save/undo step, and where anim_graph_id should be sourced from. The output schema covers return values, so repeating them is not required but also not harmful.

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 coverage is 0% (only bare titles), so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters: anim_graph_id is explained as a graph id accepting number or digit string, and transition_id is tied to its source tool get_anim_graph. It stops short of describing the id format or what happens when a non-existent transition id is passed.

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 verb and resource ('Remove a transition') and adds scope detail ('and its conditions'), so an agent immediately knows what it does. It does not however differentiate itself from near siblings like remove_anim_graph_node, remove_anim_graph_parameter, or remove_anim_graph, which all follow the same 'remove a graph sub-object' pattern.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only invocation aid is the trailing note that transition_id comes from get_anim_graph, which helps locate the id but is not usage guidance in the sense of choosing this tool over set_anim_graph_transition or remove_anim_graph_node.

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