rig_character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that joints are found from the mesh, weights come from a watertight proxy, garments are smoothed, hair/hats are rigid to the head, max 4 influences, and test_poses reports worst stretch. It omits whether an existing rig/weights are overwritten or what happens on failure, which keeps it from a 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and preconditions, then the skeleton/weight details, then the export workflow. Dense and largely waste-free, though the skeleton bone enumeration is long and the trailing export advice could arguably be separate.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers preconditions, internal processing traits, and the downstream workflow an agent needs. The main gap is the absence of failure/overwrite behavior, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 75% and the description mostly repeats what the schema already documents (fingers = thumb + 4 fingers, objects = body/clothes/hair/accessories). It adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Automatic humanoid rig for a finished character') and immediately scopes it with the required input pose (T/A-pose, -Y facing, Z up). This clearly separates it from the sibling rig_prop even without naming it.

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 a clear precondition (finished character in T- or A-pose) and points to the follow-on workflow (export_skeletal then retarget Mannequin animations with the IK Retargeter). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name rig_prop as the alternative for non-humanoid assets, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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