vrc_auto_weight

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

The description mentions using Blender's automatic weights (heat map) and setting up an armature modifier, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing weights or modifiers, potential failure cases, or the destructive nature of the operation.

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 short and uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to parse. It contains no unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more concise by combining sentences.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks information about edge cases (e.g., missing mesh/armature) and what the tool returns. The output schema covers return values, so this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters clearly, including default behaviors (empty mesh_name uses 'Body' or first mesh; empty armature_name uses first armature). This adds significant value beyond the 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 it automatically weight paints a mesh to an armature using Blender's automatic weights and sets up the armature modifier. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'armature_auto_weight', which may perform a similar task.

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. The description implies usage for auto-weight-painting but lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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