add_animation_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add,' implying a mutation, but does not explain whether existing libraries are overwritten, whether permissions are needed, or what side effects occur on the scene file. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the operation's impact.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, and the key action is front-loaded. It is efficient but sacrifices important completeness, which is a separate concern.

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 that modifies a scene file, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify what 'player' refers to, how the optional 'animations' parameter integrates, or what the outcome of the operation is. With no output schema and no annotations, this is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 fully describes all three parameters, including scene_path as a .tscn path, animation_name as the new library name, and animations as reserved UIDs. With 100% schema coverage, the description need not add parameter details, but it also does not offer any context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action (add animation library) and a target (player), but 'player' is ambiguous without specifying 'AnimationPlayer' or how it relates to the scene_path. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like add_animation_track because it mentions 'library', but the lack of domain context makes it less clear.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_animation or add_animation_track. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether an AnimationPlayer must already exist in the scene) or exclusions.

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