rig_tools

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., modifications are irreversible), required permissions, or mode prerequisites. For a tool that modifies armatures, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured with a clear list of operations and their parameters. While it is somewhat lengthy, every part adds necessary information; however, the initial sentence could be more concise.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers each operation's required parameters, though it omits any mention of return values or error conditions. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke with correct sub-params.

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 description adds extensive meaning by detailing each operation value and its required sub-parameters (e.g., 'add_ik' needs bone, target_bone, chain_length, pole_bone). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates, enabling correct parameter construction.

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 'Advanced rigging operations for animation-ready armatures' and enumerates specific operations (add_ik, add_fk_ik_switch, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like rigify_* or armature_*.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., rigify_configure_ik, armature_add_constraint). The description lacks explicit context for appropriate usage or when to avoid it.

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