Creates an animation montage from a source animation sequence, using a specified name and content directory in Unreal Engine.
Create an animation montage from an animation sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Montage name | |
| path | No | Content directory | /Game/Animations |
| sequence_path | Yes | Source AnimSequence asset path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., asset creation location, overwrites), permission requirements, or how the montage relates to the source sequence. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
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, succinct sentence that conveys the core action without fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and avoids redundancy with the schema. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it remains clear and purposeful.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., where the montage is saved, whether it is automatically opened, or how to verify success). For a creation tool, this missing context is a notable gap, especially since the tool has multiple parameters and siblings.
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 input schema has descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply restating the relationship between the source and the montage. It does not clarify parameter formats, defaults, or interdependencies beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('animation montage') with a source ('from an animation sequence'). It is specific enough to distinguish from related tools like create_anim_blueprint, though it could be slightly more detailed about what a montage represents. Overall, it's a clear purpose statement.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for animation and asset creation, this lack of context makes it hard for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.