rig_biped

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the built bone hierarchy, floor-pinned foot IK vs chest-riding arm IK, the single weighted mesh per joint, error behavior for missing layers ('a clear error listing them'), and the concrete effects of breathing, look_at, and secondary_motion. It omits whether an existing rig is overwritten and any permission/side-effect caveats, so not quite a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite in the first sentence, then layer recognition, then the build structure, then the option effects. It is long and dense, but nearly every clause carries actionable information (layer names, IK placement, error behavior), with little filler.

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 high-complexity, 9-parameter, 0%-schema-coverage tool with no output schema, the description supplies the layer contract, build topology, and option semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. Gaps remain around the 'detail' parameter and overwrite/return behavior, but the core is well covered.

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% across 9 params, so the description is the only source of meaning and it explains most of them: facing (auto/right/left), breathing (4s loop), look_at, look_lag_frames (head lag at 30fps), spine_twist, and secondary_motion. It leaves 'detail' and 'meshes' effectively unexplained, so it compensates well but not completely.

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 and resource ('Rig a biped from its PSD layers') and immediately names the prerequisite (import_psd origin="bottom" first) plus the 'in one call' convenience framing. An agent can tell it apart from rig_quadruped, rig_serpent, rig_flier, and rig_creature without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: the required import_psd prerequisite, the accepted layer naming conventions, and which layers are required vs optional. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it (e.g., vs rig_creature or make_biped_sample), which keeps it short of a 5.

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