blender_autorig_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It openly states that the tool creates a bone hierarchy, optionally auto-weights the mesh, and configures for MSFS export. It does not detail potentially slow or destructive side effects of auto-weighting, but the main mutating behaviors are disclosed.

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 with the core concept 'One-call auto-rig generator.' The long preset list is justified because each entry is paired with a short explanatory parenthetical, making the listing more informative without adding filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation considerations: preset selection, optional auto-weighting, and MSFS compatibility. It does not mention the resulting armature's naming or how to reference the newly created object, but it provides enough for an agent to understand the operation and invoke it 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful semantics by expanding every preset enum into understandable real-world analogs (BIPED humanoid, QUADRUPED four-legged, etc.). The optional auto-weight and MSFS configuration are also reflected in the description, though the booleans are mainly described via the schema.

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 what the tool does: 'One-call auto-rig generator' that 'creates a complete bone hierarchy' for a specific set of presets. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish from, but the phrase 'one-call' and the detailed preset list separate it from lower-level armature or rig-related tools.

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?

Usage is implied through 'common use cases' and the enumerated preset types, which tells an agent this is for standard rigging scenarios. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer, such as manual armature creation or rig validation tools.

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