rig_flier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it discloses layer naming, physics on strands and primaries, the flap phase model, per-clip behavior, and a seamless land -> perch guarantee. It still omits destructiveness/reversibility, permission or project prerequisites, and return/error behavior.

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 content is dense and mostly substantive, but it opens with a near-title restatement and the long run-on 'flap' paragraph buries the tool's primary action. Information is present but not cleanly front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient; it richly covers rig anatomy and clip behavior but leaves key inputs (project, parent, cycles, flap_hz defaults) unexplained and never states what the tool returns or whether it overwrites an existing rig. Adequate but with clear gaps for an 11-parameter construction tool.

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 coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate; it does meaningfully for amp ('[shoulder, elbow, hand] degrees (default 40, 15, 20)'), lag (phase degrees behind), downstroke (58% of the beat) and clips (named list). It leaves project, parent, name, cycles and flap_hz without semantic explanation, so the coverage gap is only partly filled.

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 begins 'Bird / flier (front view, wings to the sides)' and details the resulting rig structure and animation clips, so it is clear the tool builds a flier rig. However, it never states the action explicitly (e.g. 'creates a rig') and does not differentiate itself from siblings like rig_biped, rig_quadruped or rig_creature beyond the name.

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 text describes what the rig contains and how clips behave, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a project/skeleton must exist first), and no routing to alternatives such as make_flier_sample or rig_creature. Usage is only implied by context.

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