Generate Rig

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: an approval gate, conservative exact/alias detection, and a stated non-effect ('does not invent joints or move imported geometry'). What it does not address is destruction — destructiveHint is true but the description never says whether an existing rig or prior mapping is replaced, which is the main open risk.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then detection behavior, then non-goals, then preconditions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a destructive, approval-gated tool with a nested 11-key object, the description covers preconditions, detection behavior and side-effect boundaries; only the concrete effect on any pre-existing rig is missing.

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 coverage is 50%, with request_id already documented in-schema, so the burden falls on the mapping object. The description compensates by stating that all 11 bone names should be supplied under ambiguity, effectively explaining the nested object's contract; the retry semantics of request_id are covered by the schema itself.

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: 'Propose a body-part mapping for an existing humanoid hierarchy,' which also clarifies that this proposes rather than authors a rig from scratch. The 'existing humanoid hierarchy' qualifier implicitly separates it from creation tools like create_model, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Requires approval and a valid existing hierarchy' gives a clear precondition, and 'provide all 11 mapped bone names when detection is ambiguous' tells the agent when to switch from relying on auto-detection to supplying the full mapping. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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