rigging_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses format and face limits but does not mention if the operation is destructive, time estimates, or return behavior. More behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds constraints and parameter guidance. No fluff.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers format, face limit, a prerequisite (remesh), and parameter selection. Missing details like expected return value (likely a task ID) but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema descriptions define parameters well. The description adds value by noting that input_task_id and model_url are alternatives, which clarifies mutual exclusivity not explicit in 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 the verb 'Auto-rig' and the resource 'humanoid 3D model', with the purpose 'for animation'. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like remesh_create by specifying format and face limits.

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?

It tells when to use (to rig a humanoid model) and provides constraints (GLB, max 300k faces, remesh first if over). It also clarifies parameter choice between input_task_id and model_url. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools.

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