rig_from_scratch

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

The annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds that multi-bone configurations require manual weights, which is a behavioral caveat beyond the annotations. It does not detail what is destroyed, but this is partially covered by destructiveHint=true.

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?

Two short sentences in Indonesian, front-loading the main action and adding a conditional note. No waste, easily scannable.

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, the description leaves out critical details about parameters, the meaning of 'background', and how the binding works. For a complex tool with 4 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 has four parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. There is a hint that manual weights are needed for multi-bone, which vaguely relates to auto_weight, but no explicit mapping.

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 uses the verb 'buat' (create) with a clear resource ('armature dan rantai tulang') and outcome ('ikat ke mesh'), stating it builds a rig from scratch and binds it to the mesh. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auto_rig_weight and create_armature.

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?

It implies usage for starting a fresh rig and warns that multi-bone setups in the background need manual weight assignment, which is a clear contextual guideline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it's not a full 5.

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