save_anim_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses irreversibility (not undoable), a hard path restriction enforced by the gem, and the returned keys. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior (what happens if the target file already exists) or permission/error requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the irreversibility caveat, then return shape and constraints, then per-arg notes. No filler sentences, though the return-value line partly duplicates the output schema.

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 two-parameter save tool that has an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, path constraint, and both parameters. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (existing file, failure modes), which is modest for this complexity.

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 mostly does: it explains that anim_graph_id accepts a number or digit string (matching the anyOf) and that file_name defaults to the graph's current file (clarifying the opaque null default) and must resolve under the project root. Minor gap: no detail on path format (relative vs absolute) or overwrite semantics.

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 and resource ("Save an anim graph to disk"), which unambiguously separates it from sibling save tools like save_level/save_prefab and from get/load/remove_anim_graph. The scope of the write (single graph, to disk) is 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?

Gives useful invocation guidance for the optional param ("omit to save to the graph's current file") and a hard constraint (path must be inside project root), plus a caution ("Not undoable"). However it names no alternative sibling or when-not-to-use condition, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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