apply_anim_modifier

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects and constraints. It only says 'Apply', which implies a modification, but does not disclose whether the original asset is mutated, what the modifier does, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient given the absence of annotations.

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 sentence, highly concise with no fluff. It covers the essential action and object, though it lacks elaboration. Structure is simple and direct.

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?

Without annotations alert, the description must carry full weight. It does not explain what happens when applied, whether it alters the original sequence or creates a new one, any prerequisites (e.g., sequence must exist), or return values. Given two parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 descriptions are present for both parameters ('AnimSequence path' and 'Animation modifier class name'), achieving 100% coverage. However, they are terse and do not explain expected formats, allowed values, or how they interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema provides basic definitions but no additional 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?

The description clearly states the action (apply) and the resource (animation modifier to an animation sequence). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools like 'apply_material', though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling animation tools or list alternatives. The verb-resource pairing is clear, but lacks detail on what 'modifier' means in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar animation tools (e.g., create_anim_blueprint, get_sequence_info). The description is minimal and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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