set_tree_parameter

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: the auto-prefixing of 'parameters/' when missing. However, annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, or any requirements, which limits the transparency to a single helpful detail.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a useful behavioral note. There is no wasted wording, and it fits the tool's simple nature perfectly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema coverage, the description is sparse. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., an existing AnimationTree), error handling, and what happens after setting the parameter. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap, making the description incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'parameter' field by giving examples (condition or blend amount) and hints at the format via auto-prefixing. However, it does not clarify 'node_path' or 'value', and the compensation is partial. The description thus provides only marginal value beyond the raw schema.

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: setting an AnimationTree parameter (e.g., condition or blend amount), with the specific verb 'Set' and resource 'AnimationTree parameter'. It also differentiates from sibling tools like set_blend_tree_node by focusing on the tree's parameter rather than node properties.

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 context—it is for setting AnimationTree parameters—but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The mention of 'such as a condition or blend amount' gives some context but no direct comparison with sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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