rig.assign_weights

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain what state changes occur, whether existing weights are overwritten, or what prerequisites are needed before calling. The risk and maturity labels are generic harness boilerplate, not operation-specific behavior.

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 but that is under-specification, not skillful conciseness. Repeating the command name and adding generic risk/policy statements does not earn the space; useful content about the operation is absent.

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 9-parameter mutation-style rig tool with nested selection objects and many related rig siblings, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the command does, which arguments matter, what side effects to expect, or how it differs from nearby rig tools.

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 44% and the description provides zero parameter guidance. Core parameters like bone, mesh, mode, weight, and _expectedSceneRevision are left without any explanation of acceptable values or behavior. The description does nothing to compensate for the incomplete 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 and adds harness metadata (risk, maturity, requirements). It never states what the tool actually does, such as assigning vertex weights from a bone to a mesh. The action is only inferable from the command name itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_rig_bind or blender_rig_rigify_generate. The only context is generic harness requirements, which apply to every command and do not help an agent decide between siblings.

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