add_rig_control

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), lowering the bar. The description adds the return shape including saved/save_error, but says nothing about hierarchy mutation effects, whether re-adding overwrites, or the PIE refusal documented only in the schema's force param. Adequate but thin on behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the control-type list and the return contract. Structure is efficient; the large inline return object is justified because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully inlines the return shape (counts, saved, save_error). Combined with 100% param coverage and annotations, most of what an agent needs to call it is present; only usage routing and mutation caveats are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all six parameters, including the control_type enum and default. The description repeats the control-type list and default without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Add a control to a Control Rig's hierarchy,' and enumerates the supported control types, which distinguishes it from siblings like add_rig_bone and add_rig_null. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives; the agent must infer that this is the tool for creating a control rather than a bone or null. The unrelated sibling set makes routing ambiguous without explicit exclusions.

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