gen_uthana_create_character

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the primary side-effect ('create an auto-rigged character target'), but it never explains the cost/confirmation implication hinted at by confirm_usage, any auth requirements, upload/processing behavior, or timeout semantics. The KB pointer offers context but not explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a useful KB pointer and a concrete one-line example. It is compact and every element earns its place, though the example's parameter naming could be more consistent with the schema's snake_case.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values) and no nested objects, the tool has ten parameters at 0% schema coverage, and the description explains only three of them. For a tool this complex, in-line parameter documentation or a fuller example is needed; the external KB pointer alone is not sufficient.

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, but it only touches three of ten parameters via the example (local_file, character_name, confirm_usage). Seven parameters—auto_rig, timeout_s, rerig_target, session_name, set_as_default, include_fingers, auto_rig_front_facing—are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Upload a Tripo/exported character file to Uthana') and a clear outcome ('create an auto-rigged character target'). This distinguishes it from siblings like gen_uthana_text_to_motion, gen_uthana_get_character, and gen_uthana_create_locomotion. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so a 4 rather than 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the KB reference (31_GENERATIVE_CONTENT_PIPELINE.md#uthana-motion-task-family) and a concrete example show how it fits into the generative pipeline, but the description never states explicitly when to use this versus gen_uthana_get_character or gen_uthana_import_animation_to_project, and gives no when-not conditions.

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