animation_track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds value by revealing that operations only affect the current execution context and are not persisted, which is beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 three sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose, then categorically listing operations, and ending with a critical boundary note. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level map of operations and the essential runtime-vs-persistence distinction. It does not cover return values or error handling, but these are not required given the rich schema and annotations, so it's adequately complete.

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 input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all 15 parameters, including enums and conditional requirements. The description adds no extra param-level semantics, so it scores baseline 3 for a fully schema-covered tool.

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 handles animation tracks and keyframes, enumerating all action categories (track, keyframe, curve). It distinguishes itself from persistent file editing by noting runtime-only scope, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 sentence '运行时操作，仅影响当前执行上下文。如需持久化，请编辑 .tscn 文件' explicitly tells when to use the tool (runtime) and when not (for persistence), naming the alternative (editing .tscn). This is clear usage guidance.

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