make_quadruped_sample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real side effects — rig=True additionally runs rig_quadruped over all clips, and with_mid=False drops the metapodial layers so the rig splits the lower legs — but it says nothing about what files land in out_dir, overwrite behavior, or any prerequisites/permissions for a generation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces before covering the two flag behaviors. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 five-parameter code-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two non-obvious boolean behaviors but omits what the generated output actually is on disk and how out_dir/leg_type shape the result. Adequate for a knowledgeable agent, but there are clear gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must document all five parameters. It explains only two (rig and with_mid); out_dir, name, and leg_type are left entirely undefined, and leg_type's default 'digitigrade' has no documented value set despite being a meaningful anatomical choice.

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 names a concrete artifact (a procedural dog-like side view that faces right and stands on y=0), its structure (one layer per part following the QUADRUPED_LAYERS convention), and its intended use (to try rig_quadruped and gait on). That is a specific verb+resource, and 'dog-like/quadruped' implicitly separates it from make_biped_sample, make_serpent_sample, and make_creature_sample, though it never names those alternatives outright.

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 states the purpose of the sample ('to try rig_quadruped and gait on'), which implies when to reach for it, and it ties rig=True to running rig_quadruped. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the sibling sample generators or rig tools, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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