generate_character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the side effect: 'Writes <output_root>/characters/<name>/base/' and lists the written artifacts. It also explains the output_dir override behavior relative to set_output_root. It does not mention overwrite or idempotency, but it is reasonably transparent for a creation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, shared-skeleton constraint, output location, optional override, and required ordering. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the core workflow, output path, and ordering, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not needed. However, with 0% schema coverage and three parameters, a key parameter (`scale`) remains undocumented, leaving a real gap in the complete calling contract.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only explains output_dir. The required `name` parameter is implied via the output path, and `scale` is completely unexplained beyond its default value. An agent cannot know what `scale` controls or how it affects output.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy the SHARED naked side-view armature into a named character folder.' It also differentiates from siblings like generate_base_idle and generate_pivots by stressing that all characters share the same authored 90x128 base idle and pivots and that agents should not invent a per-style skeleton.

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 an explicit sequencing cue: 'Call once before plan_outfit / animation.' It also warns against inventing a per-style skeleton, which implicitly tells the agent not to use per-character skeleton generation. It could be stronger with an explicit named alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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