enter_rig_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the crash consequence of skipping it and that execution runs on the scene idle event. It does not cover idempotency, return behavior, or whether re-entry is safe, keeping it below 5.

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 dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite/crash rationale following immediately. The final sentence about the idle event is slightly implementation-flavored but still informative.

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 zero-required-param mode switch with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, entry-point variants, and failure mode. Only return/verification behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Only one optional parameter (color) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents format and default. The description adds nothing about color, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Enter Cascadeur's Rig mode') and names the exact entry points used (rig_mode.on, run_after_import). None of the siblings (call_action, run_python, ui_*) do mode switching, so the tool is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it is required before Quick Rigging's Add rig elements / Generate rig, and run_after_import is specified for a freshly imported model. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but there are no real alternatives among the siblings.

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