add_bone_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any mention of side effects, prerequisites, errors, or idempotency. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient.

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 quite short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args section merely duplicates parameter titles from the schema, making those lines redundant. Overall, it's minimally sized but not optimally purposed.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context such as what a 'bone track' is, whether the bone must exist, or whether this addition is reversible. With no annotations and minimal info, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without errors.

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 description adds only 'Unreal' to 'asset_path' and repeats 'bone name' from the schema, which is nearly tautological. Given 0% schema description coverage, it does not adequately compensate with meaningful parameter explanations.

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 uses the specific verb 'add' and explicitly names the resource ('bone track') and target ('animation'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like remove_bone_track and set_bone_track_keys.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only use case is implied by the action itself, so it fails to provide discriminative usage guidelines.

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