rigify_generate_rig

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool generates a control rig with IK/FK and custom shapes, and mentions auto-parenting. But it does not indicate whether the meta-rig is modified or destroyed, whether it works on selected objects, or any side effects. More details on post-rigging actions would improve transparency.

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 efficiently structured with two concise sentences followed by a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any redundant or irrelevant information.

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 that an output schema exists (thus return value description is not needed), the description covers the main action and parameter usage. However, for a complex rig generation tool, it would benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., an existing meta-rig armature) and any assumptions about the scene state. Overall, it is mostly complete for the agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, meaning the JSON schema has no property descriptions. The description's 'Parameters' section provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: metarig_name (name and default) and parent_to_mesh (purpose and behavior). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Generate the final production rig from a Rigify meta-rig' and explains it creates a full control rig with IK/FK switches and custom shapes. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like rigify_create_metarig and rigify_fit_metarig.

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 implies usage as the final step after creating and fitting a meta-rig, and the parent_to_mesh parameter hints at a specific use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., the meta-rig must exist in the scene) or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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