add_curve

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether the asset is modified in place), error conditions (e.g., if a curve with the same name already exists), or any destructive implications. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. The Args block is well-structured and each line provides necessary detail without redundancy. It is concise but not overly terse, with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple add operation, the description gives the essential purpose and parameters. However, it omits behavioral context such as whether the curve is added to an existing animation asset, any constraints (e.g., unique naming), or what happens on failure. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value details, but the mutation aspect is under-specified.

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 does by explaining each parameter: asset_path is an Unreal asset path, curve_name is the name for the new curve, and curve_type explicitly lists allowed values ('float', 'vector', or 'transform'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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 'Add a curve to an animation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_curve_keys, which add keys to an existing curve, by focusing on creating the curve itself. The argument details further clarify the action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_curve_keys or remove_curve. There are no preconditions (e.g., animation must exist) or scenarios where it should not be used. The description only states the action, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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