set_rate_scale

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

The description only states the action without any behavioral details. It does not disclose whether changes are persistent, require saving, or have side effects. Since no annotations are available, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to address these concerns.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is concise and redundant with the schema but does not include unnecessary fluff. It earns its place with just one sentence and a compact parameter list.

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, the description lacks essential context regarding usage and effects. The output schema exists but is not explained, and the practical impact of changing rate scale (e.g., speed multiplication) is not mentioned. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies asset state.

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 parameters are only minimally described: 'asset_path' is noted as an 'Unreal asset path' and 'rate_scale' as 'New rate scale value.' This adds some context beyond the schema's titles and types but lacks details on allowed values, units, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, more elaboration would be needed to score higher.

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: 'Set the rate scale of an animation.' The verb 'Set' and the resource 'rate scale' are specific enough to distinguish it from sibling getters and other setters like set_root_motion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 vs alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, applicable animation types, or whether it should be used in conjunction with getter tools. This is a significant gap for a tool in a large sibling set.

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