set_anim_graph_transition

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a real constraint not encoded in the schema: at least one setting must be supplied (schema only requires the two ids). It also states the return shape and per-field value constraints. It stops short of covering persistence (does a save_anim_graph follow?), error behavior on invalid ids, or idempotency.

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-loads the action, then the key constraint, then the return contract, then a tight per-argument list. Every line earns its place and the Args block is scannable for a seven-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value need not be explained in depth, yet the description still usefully ties it to get_anim_graph's shape. All parameters are covered and the mutation constraint stated; the only meaningful gap for a no-annotation write tool is the absence of permission, error, and persistence notes.

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% and the schema is bare 'anyOf' types, so the description must compensate — and it does, documenting all seven parameters including enum encodings for sync_mode (0/1/2) and interpolation (0/1) that are invisible in the schema. blend_time's '0 or more' bound and priority's 'higher wins' semantics add real meaning beyond the type declarations.

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-plus-resource ('Change a transition's settings') that is unambiguous within the anim-graph family. The wording cleanly separates it from the add_anim_graph_transition / remove_anim_graph_transition siblings without needing to name them.

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?

The constraint 'Pass at least one setting' is a useful usage rule, and pointing at get_anim_graph for the transition_id implies the read-before-write flow. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g. add/remove transition, set_anim_graph_node) and no statement about when not to call it.

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