animtree

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

With annotations that only show readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: operations are runtime-only and do not persist unless the user separately edits .tscn files. This prevents the agent from assuming scene changes are permanent. It does not disclose every side effect, but the persistence boundary is the most important behavior and is clearly stated.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise list of supported operations and then the key scoping note about runtime-only behavior and persistence. The list of operations overlaps with the action enum in the schema, but remains a helpful summary without excessive redundancy.

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?

Despite 18 parameters and action-dependent field usage, the description does not explain which parameters are required or how they combine for each action. It identifies broad capabilities and runtime scope, but the agent must rely entirely on schema parameter descriptions and enums to construct correct calls. There is also no output schema or return behavior description, which is a notable gap for a complex orchestration tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly restates operation names and general capabilities, providing little beyond the parameter descriptions themselves. It does not add new semantics such as default behaviors, required parameter clusters, or validation rules.

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 set ('查询、控制和编辑') with an explicit resource (AnimationTree) and enumerates concrete capabilities: creating nodes, adding states and transitions, setting blend parameters, playing states, and editing state properties. This distinguishes it from generic 'animation' or 'scene' tools by scoping it to AnimationTree runtime manipulation and explicitly separating persistence to .tscn files.

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 explicitly states that this is a runtime operation that only affects the current execution context, which tells the agent when to use it. It also gives a clear when-not/alternative: if persistence is needed, edit the .tscn file instead. This is actionable guidance beyond the input schema.

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