Bind Skin

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this modifies the mesh. The description adds context that it creates a skinCluster with configurable options. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or requirements (e.g., joint hierarchy, mesh type). The description is consistent with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema (not shown), and destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. It could mention edge cases (e.g., already bound mesh) but is adequate for evaluation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'influence options' and 'bind method and max influences,' which aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning beyond it.

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 ('Bind'), the resource ('mesh to skeleton'), and mentions influence options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'skin.unbind' and 'skin.influences' by specifying the creation of a skinCluster.

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 implies usage for binding a mesh to a skeleton, which is clear from the context of sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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