bind

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 two important behavioral traits: existing same-named groups are overwritten (a destructive side effect), and 'auto' silently falls back to proximity on dirty meshes. It omits prerequisites (e.g., armature must exist, mesh selection state) and any indication of failure modes.

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-loads the core action, then method tradeoffs, then side effects and follow-ups. It is one dense paragraph rather than a single tight sentence, but every clause carries information and none is redundant with the schema.

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 5-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points (method, overwrite risk, fallback) and the verification workflow via check_weights and pose_sheet. It does not describe what is returned or what happens on partial failure across multiple meshes.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the ambiguous params: it explains both enum values of method with tradeoffs, ties max_influences to the number of bones influencing each vertex, and identifies falloff as the proximity weighting power. 'meshes' and 'armature' are only implied by the opening sentence, and no value ranges or defaults are given.

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 and enumerates the concrete effects: 'Skin meshes to an armature: adds one vertex group per bone, the Armature modifier and the parent.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like parent, attach, and transfer_weights, which do not create per-bone vertex groups.

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?

Explicitly routes method choice: 'proximity' is 'fast, works on any mesh, good for stylised low-poly', while 'auto' uses heat-map weights and falls back to proximity for unclean meshes. It also names follow-up tools (check_weights, pose_sheet). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead when binding is not the right operation.

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