recipe.rigged_spear_character

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

The annotations are all false or unhelpful, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects, scene changes, or prerequisites. 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and 'session policy still apply' add only generic operational context, not what this tool actually does to the Blender scene.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the main sentence is a tautology and the remaining content is generic policy/risk boilerplate. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 nine parameters, multiple recipe sibling tools, and no explanation of the tool's purpose or behavior, the description is inadequate for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema does not fill the missing usage and semantic context.

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 only 33%, yet the description provides no meaning for parameters like height, apexFrame, catchFrame, releaseFrame, or _expectedSceneRevision. The description does nothing to compensate for the under-documented 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 only restates the command name as 'PartMe Blender Harness command recipe.rigged_spear_character' and adds risk/maturity labels. It never states an action such as creating, generating, or rigging a spear character, so an agent cannot derive the tool's actual function beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus blender_recipe_spear or the other recipe-related tools. The note that per-request argument checks and session policy apply is generic harness boilerplate and does not help an agent choose this tool.

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