prepare_character_handoff

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, and the description adds real value: it uses the inspected source's exact checksum, writes a separate rigged mesh/FBX/.blend/report, and returns a script to execute. This discloses what is produced and how it is consumed beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the output list and execution note are efficient. Some informative density but little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But with 0% param coverage and an unresolved ambiguity against prepare_blender_handoff, the definition is not fully complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0% for three params; the description says nothing about job_id, attempt, or sample_index. With low coverage the description should carry the burden and it does not, so it fails to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (prepare rigging/skinning/retargeting) and enumerates outputs, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling prepare_blender_handoff, so an agent cannot tell these two apart without opening schemas.

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?

"Execute the returned script through Blender MCP" gives the next-step flow, which is useful implied context. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no distinction from prepare_blender_handoff or execute_blender_handoff.

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