blender_rig_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool checks specific rig characteristics and returns a list of issues plus a compatibility score, making its read-only validation behavior reasonably clear. It does not explicitly guarantee that no modifications occur, but 'validate' combined with the output description strongly implies a non-destructive check.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes the tool's purpose, the second sentence lists what is checked and what is returned, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 purpose, inputs at a high level, validation areas, and return value shape. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the return type is valuable. It could go slightly deeper on issue format or side-effect guarantees, but for a validation tool with simple parameters, the description is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds context by linking 'target format' to the returned compatibility score, but it does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb (validate), a clear resource (armature rig), and a specific purpose (export compatibility). It enumerates concrete checks and distinguishes itself from mesh/dimension validation tools by focusing on rig-specific properties and target formats.

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 clearly implies usage before exporting an armature rig and frames validation against a target export format. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like blender_validate_mesh_quality or blender_msfs_validate_for_export, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool over general mesh validation.

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