create_animation_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tree is active, has a state machine root, is parented, and wired to an AnimationPlayer, but it does not explain potential side effects like whether existing nodes are overwritten, prerequisites such as a valid parent path, or whether the operation requires an open scene. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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, actionable sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action 'Add an active AnimationTree' and packs necessary detail into a compact form.

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's side-effect nature and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but omits important context: whether node_path must already exist, what 'active' means at runtime, and what the tool returns (if anything). A more complete description would mention prerequisites and potential failure modes.

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 absent (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameters. It does: 'parent node' implies node_path, 'wire it to an AnimationPlayer' maps to anim_player, and 'state machine root' provides context for the node's setup. The name parameter is not explicitly tied to the node name, but the description implies the created tree's identity.

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 specifies the verb 'Add' and the resource 'AnimationTree', with precise details about the state machine root, parent node, and connection to an AnimationPlayer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_animation_track or get_animation_tree_structure, which serve different purposes.

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 its use case: creating a new active AnimationTree with a state machine root and wiring it to an AnimationPlayer. While it provides clear context, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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