Positions a melee hilt in the left or right fist's grip channel and rotates it to fix blade orientation for first-person weapon rigs.
A melee hilt against the fist's grip channel, and the turn and move that lay it in (try them with probe_run's tune; a palm-down fist can hold the hilt right and still point the blade sideways: look at the screenshot).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| obj | Yes | ||
| side | No | r |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It is a mutation/rigging operation, yet the description never discloses side effects, reversibility, how 'side' defaults affect the rig, or the result — only impressionistic phrasing about grip channels and blade direction.
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?
One sprawling sentence with parentheticals and an aside about a screenshot. It is not front-loaded and the tangent about probe_run and blade orientation dilutes any actionable information.
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?
A rigging mutation tool with two undocumented parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations requires far more than this. The description provides no mechanics, no parameter meaning, and no expected outcome.
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 0% and neither 'obj' nor 'side' is explained anywhere. The description mentions 'fist', 'grip channel', and 'sideways' but never ties these to the parameters, leaving both completely undocumented.
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 is a run-on sentence mixing geometry ('melee hilt against the fist's grip channel') with unrelated advice about a screenshot and a competing sibling ('probe_run's tune'). It never states a clear verb+resource like 'attaches a weapon hilt to a rigged fist' — the purpose is only obliquely inferable from the name and the vague phrase 'lay it in'.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no contrast with siblings like rig_align or rig_pieces. The single hint ('try them with probe_run's tune') points at a different tool without explaining the relationship, which actively confuses rather than guides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.