control_rig_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that 'overwrite' deletes and replaces, and 'save' persists the asset. However, it doesn't specify side effects on existing assets or engine version limitations for modular rigs. The absence of annotations makes this a solid disclosure, but not exhaustive.

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, with a one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list and an example. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary detail. The KB reference is a single line and doesn't detract. Every sentence earns its place.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters, indicates the optional nature of some, and provides an example. The output schema likely describes the created asset. The KB reference adds context. Nothing critical is missing; the agent can call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does: each argument is listed with a brief purpose (e.g., 'skeletal_mesh_path: Optional Skeletal Mesh used as preview mesh and bone source'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action (create a Control Rig Blueprint asset) and the key optional input (seeded from a Skeletal Mesh), distinguishing it from siblings like control_rig_add_control and control_rig_describe. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Although it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the description clarifies that it creates a new asset, which contrasts with tools that describe or modify existing rigs. The optional skeletal mesh seeding is clearly contextualized, and the example is provided. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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