add_state_machine_transition

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key prerequisite for the advance_expression parameter and notes that Start/End are valid states. However, it does not describe side effects, return values, failure modes, or whether the operation is a mutation, which are important 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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the primary purpose immediately and adds necessary detail without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and avoids filler.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers some parameter semantics and one prerequisite, but it does not explain the full parameter set, expected outcomes, or error conditions. This is a complex mutation tool that warrants a more thorough description to be contextually complete.

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 adds meaning for some parameters: from_state/to_state can be 'Start' or 'End', and advance_expression is optional and requires advance_expression_base_node. However, it does not explain the semantics of node_path, state_machine_path, xfade_time, or the practical effect of switch_mode and advance_mode values, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool's function: adding a transition between two states in an AnimationTree state machine. It also adds useful context by mentioning that Start/End are accepted as state names, and specifies the transition modes involved. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_state_machine_state and remove_state_machine_transition.

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 implies when to use the tool (to add a transition), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It does mention a prerequisite (advance_expression_base_node), which offers some usage context, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is made.

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