Rig edits into a new project

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that writes go to a brand-new file via JSON import with the original untouched, that execution is dry-run unless opted in, and that the result lists incidental round-trip changes. That is meaningful mutation-safety context. It stops short of describing error handling or what happens if `output` already exists.

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?

There is little wasted content, but the whole thing is a single semicolon-chained run-on that is hard to parse and buries the dry-run default at the end. Front-loading the core action and splitting the safety note into its own sentence would help considerably.

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 nine distinct edit operations, a nested oneOf schema, and no output schema, the description covers the operation set and write semantics but leaves gaps: how `apply` toggles execution is only implied, edit ordering/dependency behavior is unstated, and there is no sense of what the returned 'round trip changed' listing looks like.

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 50%: `project` and `output` are documented in-schema, while `apply` and `edits` are not. The description compensates partially by enumerating the edit ops (which map to the `edits` oneOf branches) and by hinting at dry-run/apply semantics, but it never names `apply` or states what `edits` ordering/validation requires.

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 names the concrete operation set (addBone/addIk/addPhysics/addEvent/addSkin, setup poses, removeConstraint, meshRegion, copyMesh) and the output artifact (a NEW .spine). It is specific enough that an agent knows this is a batch rig-editing tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling `spine_auto_rig` or `spine_derive_animation`.

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?

'Dry-run by default' and 'original untouched' imply that an explicit opt-in (apply=true) is needed to actually write, and 'one skeleton' scopes the input. But there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over `spine_auto_rig` for rigging, or over `spine_import_layers` for import-style work, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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