armature_auto_weight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core action but fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether existing vertex groups are cleared), prerequisites (e.g., armature must have bones), or failure conditions. The agent is left uncertain about the tool's operational context.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two succinct sentences plus a parameter list. Every word earns its place, with the key action front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and two simple params, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks essential behavioral details like error handling, state changes, or prerequisites. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in the schema itself), so the description must compensate. It adds relational context: 'Armature to parent to' and 'Mesh to skin' clarify the direction of parenting beyond the schema titles 'Armature Name' and 'Mesh Name'. This reduces ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the action ('Parent mesh to armature with automatic weights') and identifies it as the standard skinning method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like armature_add_bone or vrc_auto_weight by specifying the automatic weighting approach.

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 says 'This is the standard way to skin a mesh to a skeleton,' which implies use for automatic weight skinning. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., manual weight painting, other armature parenting methods). Guidance is implicit but not explicit.

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