transfer_weights

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the spatial precondition and the side effect that an Armature modifier is created as part of the operation, which is not captured in the schema or annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and method, with no filler. The trailing 'The Armature modifier is set up too' is a little informal and vague about which modifier/handle, but the overall structure is tight.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description covers the core behavior and one side effect but omits what happens to existing weights on the target and what the optional armature argument does. Adequate but leaves real gaps.

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% for three parameters (donor, target, armature). The 'from X to Y' phrasing loosely implies donor/target but never names them, and the optional armature parameter is entirely unexplained — the sentence about the Armature modifier does not clarify that a specific armature can be passed in.

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 and resource (copy skin weights from a skinned mesh to another mesh) plus the method (nearest vertex), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like bind, parent, or check_weights. The parenthetical use cases (clothes, hair, new character body) sharpen the intent further.

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?

Provides a spatial precondition (both meshes should stand in the same place) and example scenarios, which implies when to reach for this tool. However, it names no alternative and gives no when-not guidance, so an agent must infer the choice against bind or check_weights on its own.

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