rig_prop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: root bone plus one bone per moving part at its hinge, limits, rigid skinning, and parent-following children. However, it omits prerequisites (an existing multi-part mesh), what it mutates or destroys, and any dependency on prior modeling steps.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and output. No filler, though the second sentence's parenthetical could be trimmed.

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 genuinely complex rigging operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output structure but not usage context, prerequisites, or failure modes. It is serviceable but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 67% and the schema itself documents 'base' and 'parts' with concrete examples (the chest lid hinge). The description reinforces the hinge-per-part model and the parent-follow behavior but adds no format detail (pivot enums, axis semantics) beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 ('Mechanical rig for props') and describes the resulting artifact ('a UE5-ready skeletal mesh'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. Sibling differentiation from rig_character is only implicit via the word 'props' rather than explicit, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The nearest sibling, rig_character, is never mentioned, and the agent gets no signal about which rigging tool applies to its target.

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