blender_rig

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

The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The annotations indicate this tool is not read-only and may have side effects, but the description does not add details about potential destructive behaviors (e.g., that 'clear' removes vertex groups) or any side effects on the blend file. It is neutral but lacks depth, scoring a 3.

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, consisting of two short paragraphs. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional 'escape hatch' note is in a separate paragraph for attn. However, the second paragraph is cryptic ('skin the body panels, then simulate') and could be clearer, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The tool surfaces a multi-step workflow (create armature, add bones, skin) and an unusual 'escape hatch' use case. With no output schema and several action-specific parameters, the description could offer more guidance on which parameters are needed for each action. The 'clear' action lacks any context. This leaves the agent with some gaps, scoring a 3.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds context by linking the 'skin' action to binding meshes and mentions the 'escape hatch' scenario, which gives some extra meaning to the 'action' parameter. This goes beyond the schema's basic enumeration, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 tool's primary purpose: creating an armature, adding bones, and binding meshes with automatic weights. It also mentions an 'escape hatch for crash setups' which is a distinct use case. However, it could be more explicit about the 'clear' action (removing vertex groups), which is not mentioned in the primary description.

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 gives some context ('Also the escape hatch for crash setups: skin the body panels, then simulate') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_create_mesh or blender_add_modifier. The 'clear' action is not contextualized, leaving the agent to infer its purpose. No alternative tools are named.

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