Create a character rig from a groom-approved exact source version, ensuring deterministic Blender production and versioned stage transitions.
Create a rig from a groom-approved exact source version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rig_type | No | biped | |
| request_id | Yes | ||
| character_id | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| source_version | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It discloses one useful precondition (the source must be groom-approved and exact), but says nothing about side effects, whether a rig asset/version is created, idempotency implied by request_id, or whether this runs as an async job tracked by get_job_status.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key constraint (groom-approved exact source) appears immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage the one-liner is materially incomplete — key inputs and behavioral traits go unaddressed.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely gestures at source_version ('exact source version') and covers none of project_root, character_id, rig_type, or request_id, leaving their meaning and role undocumented.
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 (create a rig) plus a scoping constraint (from a groom-approved exact source version), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like create_character_mesh. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from build_face_rig, which also produces rig data.
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 'groom-approved exact source version' phrase implies a prerequisite stage (grooming must be complete and approved), giving implicit when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit statement of alternatives or when-not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.