rigify_create_metarig

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 mentions creating a meta-rig but does not describe side effects, required context, or what happens to existing objects. Lacks detail on consequences.

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 concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. Structure is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the parameter list could be integrated more naturally.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers core functionality and parameters but omits prerequisites (e.g., addon state, mode) and does not mention typical usage context. Adequate but with 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 coverage is 0%, but the description lists each parameter with allowed values (e.g., rig_type options) and defaults, adding meaning beyond the schema. Could be improved with format hints or constraints.

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 tool generates a Rigify meta-rig, explaining it is a template for the final rig. It distinguishes from siblings like rigify_generate_rig and rigify_fit_metarig by specifying the type of rig created.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is an implied workflow with rigify_generate_rig, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice.

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