rig.assign_weights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions assignment by index but fails to mention that it modifies the mesh, is potentially destructive, or requires the vertex group to exist. The mode and weight parameters imply different behaviors not explained.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured by listing key parameters or usage notes. Still, it achieves brevity without sacrificing the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., vertex group must exist), error conditions, return values, and behavioral notes for different modes. Sibling tools are not differentiated beyond the basic purpose.

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%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's titles. It does not explain the 'mode' enum, 'weight' range, or 'vertices' format (comma-separated). For a 5-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 verb (assign) and the resource (vertex weights to a named vertex group), and specifies the method (by vertex index). It distinguishes from siblings like rig.vertex_group_create or rig.parent_with_auto_weights by focusing on weight assignment to an existing group.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rig.vertex_group_create for creating groups, rig.set_bone_transform for bone transforms). No prerequisites or context provided.

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