rig_parent_to_armature

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

Annotations include only a title, with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It discloses no side effects, prerequisites, defaults behavior, or return behavior. This is effectively 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 fragment is brief, but the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no structured description of the operation, only a single parameter-value list.

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 rig-parenting operation with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, this definition is severely incomplete. An agent cannot infer that the armature must exist, which object gets parented, how weighting affects the result, or what the expected outcome is.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value only for with_weights by listing acceptable values, which is useful since the schema has no enum. However, object_name and armature_name are completely unexplained, and the meaning of the weight modes is not described.

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 is only 'with_weights: ARMATURE_AUTO, ARMATURE_ENVELOPE, or ARMATURE.' It never states what the tool does—no verb, resource, or outcome. The purpose is left entirely to the tool name and title, and it does not distinguish this tool from rig_weight_transfer or other rig_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what conditions require it, or how it differs from alternatives. Among many rig-related siblings, no selection criteria are provided.

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