motion blender rig humanoid

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

The description discloses important side effects: it creates a new armature, saves a new .blend, never overwrites the original, and trims/audits automatic weights. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 concise and every sentence adds functional detail. It avoids fluff while covering prerequisites, assumptions, optional refinement, and output behavior.

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?

The description includes enough information to invoke the tool for its intended purpose, including required inputs and side effects. It lacks explicit explanation of bind and name, but the overall workflow is reasonably complete, and an output schema exists for return expectations.

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 40%, and only blendFile and landmarks have meaningful descriptions. The mesh, bind, and name parameters are undocumented, though the tool description partially compensates by explaining the overall rigging workflow.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new 16-bone humanoid armature on an unparented, unrigged mesh.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like motion_blender_animate, motion_blender_export_fbx, and motion_blender_inspect.

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 provides clear context by specifying the target input ('unparented, unrigged mesh') and the expected outcome ('Saves a new .blend'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the usage is strongly implied.

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