wizard_character_basemesh

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It reveals the creation of a mesh with modifiers and optional armature, and flags the render parameter as CPU-heavy with a recommendation to keep it False for scene building. It does not mention side effects like object selection, scene modifications, or whether it returns any handle, which is a gap for a construction 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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief feature list, and a clear parameter breakdown. It is informative without being bloated; the CPU-heavy caveat is a valuable extra. Slight redundancy ('Full body with correct proportions' could be trimmed) but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers most operational context: what it creates, parameter options, and file-saving capability. It implies the basemesh is added to the current scene but does not explicitly state return behavior or object selection. Given the complexity (8 parameters), it is fairly complete, though mentioning the created object's selection or return handle would elevate it further.

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 includes an 'Args' section explaining every parameter (height, style, gender, subdivisions, add_armature, render, samples, output_path) with defaults and some nuance (e.g., CPU-heavy render). Since the schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), this text compensates fully, giving the agent all needed meaning to set each value correctly.

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 creates a character basemesh with an optional rig, describing specific features (proportions, edge loops, mirror modifier) that distinguish it from general mesh or armature tools. It also lists the style options (humanoid, creature, robot, cartoon) which set expectations.

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 the tool is used when a full character base mesh is needed, mentioning 'create a character basemesh with rig in one call.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like create_humanoid_rig or create_object, nor does it mention conditions or exclusions. The optional armature note hints at a choice but doesn't clarify when to pick this tool instead of a standalone rig tool.

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