qa_character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the checks performed, the auto-detection of rig type, and the shape of the result ('Returns fix: what to change, joint by joint and clip by clip'), but never states whether the tool mutates anything, permissions needed, or cost/runtime behavior for a diagnostic over potentially many clips.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the single run-on sentence packs parenthetical definitions and the cryptic fragment 'plus mobile_character' that adds noise rather than clarity. Readable but not tight.

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 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs a fuller description. It explains the return field but omits fps/crack_threshold semantics, scope of the scan, and any safety or side-effect information an agent needs to invoke 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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It clarifies rig_type (listing biped/quadruped/flier/serpent/face and 'auto detects') and implies animations ('clip by clip'), but says nothing about fps or crack_threshold, leaving two of five parameters 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?

States a specific verb (QA) and resource (character) and enumerates the concrete checks: joint cracks, foot slide, and mobile bone budget. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling qa_budget, which appears to overlap with the bone-budget portion of this tool, leaving ambiguity about which QA tool to pick.

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 statement of when to run this versus alternatives like qa_budget or validate, nor any prerequisite context (does it require a completed rig? a spine-core project?). The inline definitions explain what it detects, not when an agent should choose it.

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