metahuman_assign_dna

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'assign' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any side effects, such as modifying the package or requiring specific asset formats, authentication, or irreversible changes. The KB reference is a positive but not sufficient disclosure.

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: two sentences plus an example and KB reference. It is front-loaded with the core action. The example is very useful for understanding usage. Slight redundancy in listing 'DNA, face mesh, and rig logic' which matches parameter names, but not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required) and no annotations, the description is not fully complete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, potential file paths, or required input format. The KB reference helps but is an external dependency. Missing information like asset paths or whether dna_asset and dna_file are alternatives reduces completeness.

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?

The schema provides parameter names and defaults, but no descriptions. The description only covers character_name and dna_asset via the example, leaving dna_file, rig_logic_asset, and face_skeletal_mesh unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate for all parameters but doesn't, so a 3 is slightly generous; a 2 might be warranted, but the example gives partial clarity.

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 (assign DNA, face mesh, and rig logic metadata) and the primary resource (MetaHuman package). It also provides a concrete example with a character name and DNA asset. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like metahuman_import or metahuman_link_to_skeleton, though the action is specific enough.

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 description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives an example, but no guidance on prerequisites, such as whether the MetaHuman must already be imported, or when to use metahuman_import or metahuman_configure_wrapper. This is a significant gap for correct tool selection.

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