set_anim_graph_entry_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return value and a node-validity constraint. However, it does not say whether an existing entry state is overwritten, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are required for this mutation — meaningful gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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, followed by the return shape and a compact Args block. Slightly redundant to state the return value when an output schema exists, but no sentence is wasted.

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-required-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, return shape, and one constraint. It omits the when-to-use context and behavioral consequences of changing the entry state, leaving the definition adequate but not fully rounded out.

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. It clarifies that anim_graph_id accepts a number or digit string and adds real semantic meaning for node_id ('the node to enter first; it must be able to act as a state'). That is helpful but partial given both parameters lacked any schema documentation.

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: it makes a node the entry state of its containing state machine. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write operations like set_anim_graph_node or add_anim_graph_node. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to prefer in ambiguous cases.

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 a single precondition ('it must be able to act as a state'), which is useful, but no guidance on when to use this versus set_anim_graph_node or other state mutation tools, and no exclusions or alternatives named. Usage is left largely to inference.

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