rig_and_animate

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

With no annotations, the description carmers the full burden. It discloses output files, optional editable project emission, and the reservation of the 'kind' parameter (both values behave the same). However, it does not mention whether files are overwritten, if Spine CLI is required for all operations, or any side effects like source modification, leaving gaps in 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 concise at about 7 lines, with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a parameter list in pseudo-code style. Every line adds value, though the parameter list could be tightened slightly without losing information. Overall, well-structured and efficient.

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 (6 params, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return summary. It lacks details on error handling, overwrite behavior, or specific animation semantics, but is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases. A bit more detail on return structure would push it higher.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains each of the six parameters clearly: source path format, out_dir destination, name default behavior, kind restriction, anims subset, and make_editable side-effect. This provides significant value beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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?

Description clearly states it builds a rigged + animated Spine skeleton from a cut-up character. The action (build) and resource (rigged + animated Spine skeleton) are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pack_atlas or make_project by focusing on the rigging and animation pipeline.

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 gives clear context about the tool's purpose (creating Spine skeleton from character assets) and input/output expectations, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives (e.g., preview, batch). It implies usage for rigging/animation tasks but lacks explicit exclusions.

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