rig.rigify_generate

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'Risk: standard; maturity: L4' which is generic metadata, but does not disclose what the tool does, whether it mutates the scene, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. It provides no behavioral insight beyond vague labels.

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 brief and front-loaded with the harness context, but it is not structured to convey meaning. It is concise but not informative; it wastes the little space it uses on generic metadata instead of functional details. It is not verbose, so it earns a middle score.

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 rig generation tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no indication of what the tool does, what inputs are needed, how it relates to sibling rig tools, or any workflow context. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of a functional description.

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 50% (only _requestId, _authorization, _transactionId have descriptions). The description adds no explanation for any parameter, including the required _transactionId or the likely key parameter objectId. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving agents to guess the meaning of name, objectId, and _expectedSceneRevision.

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 states that it is a 'PartMe Blender Harness command' and gives the command name, but does not state what the tool actually does. It neither mentions generating a rig nor differentiates it from siblings like blender_rig_rigify_install or blender_rig_rigify_status. It is essentially a restatement of the name with generic metadata, lacking a specific verb and resource.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the intended workflow. The mention of 'Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' is not usage guidance and does not help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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