Copy skin weights between meshes by nearest vertex to rig clothes, hair, or a new character body, then set up the Armature modifier.
Copy skin weights from a skinned mesh to another mesh by nearest vertex (same rig for clothes, hair, a new character body). Both meshes should stand in the same place. The Armature modifier is set up too.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| donor | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| armature | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the algorithm (nearest vertex), a precondition (both meshes in the same place) and a real side effect (the Armature modifier is set up too). It does not say whether existing target weights are overwritten, what happens on mismatched rigs, or what is returned.
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 action, with each sentence adding a distinct fact (method, precondition, side effect). The parenthetical use-case list is slightly cluttered but earns its place.
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 an unannotated, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers purpose, precondition and one side effect, which is the minimum viable set. It leaves gaps on parameter roles, overwrite behavior and error conditions that matter for a weight-transfer operation.
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% across all three parameters. The description conveys direction (from donor mesh to target mesh) but never maps the parameter names donor/target to their roles, and the optional armature parameter is entirely unexplained.
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 (copy) and resource (skin weights) plus the method (nearest vertex) and the concrete use cases (clothes, hair, new character body). It is clearly distinguishable from mesh-mutation siblings, though it does not name the closest relatives like bind or check_weights.
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 parenthetical use cases and the 'same rig'/'same place' constraint imply when this applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as bind or check_weights. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.