set_blend_tree_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional wiring capability but omits crucial details like what 'replace' does to existing connections, prerequisites for node type validity, or side effects on the blend tree state. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.

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, information-dense sentence without filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core action and an optional capability, earning every word's place.

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 complexity of 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It lacks return value details, error conditions, and any guidance on parameter combinations or constraints. The add/replace semantics and coordinate system assumptions are unstated, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to navigate.

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 provides a single hint about wiring output to input ports (relating to connect_to/connect_port) but fails to clarify the meaning of animation, position_x/y, state_machine_path, or the relationship between blend_tree_state and node_path. Parameters are left mostly unexplained.

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 adds or replaces a node in a blend tree state and optionally wires outputs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling animation tools by focusing exclusively on blend tree node manipulation, with no overlapping tool among siblings.

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 usage in blend tree editing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names like add_state_machine_state, which target a different hierarchy.

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