rigify_to_vrc

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: duplication of DEF-bones, creation of a clean hierarchy with Unity Humanoid naming, exclusion of non-deform bones, and readiness for FBX export. It does not, however, detail prerequisites (e.g., valid Rigify rig), error conditions, or the exact output format (e.g., whether a new object is created). The presence of an output schema mitigates some omissions.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs. The first paragraph states the purpose and high-level behavior, and the second lists parameters with defaults. No redundant or irrelevant sentences. Front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description covers the tool's primary function and both parameters. It assumes familiarity with Rigify and Unity Humanoid naming. It does not clarify whether the original rig is modified or a new armature is created, nor does it mention error handling. Given the output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for a specialized conversion tool.

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 includes explicit parameter documentation: rig_name (default 'rig') and export_name (if empty, defaults to '{rig_name}_vrc'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, it could further explain constraints or use cases for each parameter.

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: 'Convert a Rigify-generated rig to VRC-compatible bone naming.' It specifies the action (conversion), resource (Rigify rig), and target (VRC bone naming). It further explains the method: duplicating DEF-bones with Unity Humanoid naming for FBX export, which distinguishes it from related tools like rigify_generate_rig or vrc_rename_bones.

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 after generating a Rigify rig by referencing 'Rigify-generated rig' and the duplication/renaming process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as vrc_create_humanoid_armature, vrc_rename_bones, or other rigify tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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