set_additive_type

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 does not mention that this is a mutating operation, potential side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are persistent. For a setter, 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 concise and to the point, with a clear one-sentence function statement followed by a structured Args block. It avoids fluff, though the overall structure could be more integrated with natural language.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema details, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, error behavior, asset load prerequisites, or any side effects. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves many practical questions unanswered.

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 brief parameter meanings and concrete examples for additive_type and base_pose_type values, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or the exact format of asset_path beyond calling it an 'Unreal asset path'.

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 'Set additive animation type' with a specific verb and resource, and the parameters indicate the target asset and values. It distinguishes itself from the many getter tools in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly compare with other set_* tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or effects are mentioned. The description only states the one-liner and parameter list without any context on typical use cases or limitations.

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