modify_animation_events

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that modifications are undoable, times are normalized to 0–1, event ids remain stable, and generated ids are returned. These are non-obvious behavioral details that significantly help an agent anticipate side effects and return behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences each add a distinct, non-redundant fact: the operation set, transactionality, and the normalization/id behavior. No wasted words and no restating of the schema or annotations.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral contract for a destructive tool: operations, undoability, normalization, and generated IDs. The schema documents the operation structures and constraints. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and the consequences of event.remove, but they are not critical for correct 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?

Only assetId is documented in the input schema; the operations array has no top-level description. The description compensates by explaining that operations are add/update/remove commands and by clarifying the time normalization. It does not elaborate on the properties sub-object, but the schema's anyOf structure already defines that thoroughly.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase, 'Add, update, or remove GLB animation events', naming the exact resource and the three operations supported. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_animation_events and from modify_anim_state_graph, which targets a different resource.

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 description clearly frames this as the mutation tool for GLB animation events and adds useful context about batching via 'one undoable transaction'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is evident enough that an agent can decide when to use it.

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