add_animation_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states 'Add track to animation.' It fails to mention that this modifies a scene file, whether the operation can overwrite existing tracks, whether it is reversible, or what the return value indicates. This is a mutation tool with zero transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no redundant words. However, at just five words, it is under-specified and does not earn its place as the sole descriptive element for a complex tool.

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 the comprehensive schema, the description lacks essential context: prerequisites, consequences, and procedural steps. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate for safe and correct 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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions, including helpful examples for track_path. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names the action ('Add'), the object ('track'), and the target ('animation'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_animation and remove_animation_track. However, it lacks specifics about the Godot AnimationPlayer context, making it slightly less than fully precise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that the animation must already exist. There is no context about the intended workflow or exclusions.

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