set_root_motion

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning that this modifies the asset permanently, potential side effects, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list with brief, clear definitions. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

While the tool is simple and parameter explanations are good, the description lacks guidance on preconditions, side effects, or interaction between 'enabled' and 'lock_type'. The output schema may cover return values, but overall the description is only minimally sufficient for safe invocation.

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 provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters, including an example for 'lock_type' (e.g., 'AnimFirstFrame', 'Zero', 'RefPose'). Since the input schema has no property descriptions, this fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Enable/disable root motion on an animation.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_rate_scale' or 'add_curve' by focusing on root motion manipulation.

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 implies its usage context: when you need to change root motion on an animation asset. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the clear purpose provides sufficient guidance for typical use cases.

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