rig_mesh

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: outline traced from alpha, simplified without clipping art, denser vertices at joints, conforming Delaunay valid for Spine's importer, and weights diffusing from bone *segments* so they don't leak across gaps. It does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing mesh is overwritten, permission requirements, or failure modes for an 11-parameter mutation.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter notes are compactly formatted. The algorithm paragraph is slightly verbose but every clause conveys usable behavior rather than 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, 11-parameter mutation tool, the definition explains the mesh-generation behavior well but leaves most parameters undocumented and never states whether existing meshes/weights are replaced or what the tool returns on success. It is adequate but has 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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it documents only bones, detail, and smooth (plus auto_bones via the bones note). Key tuning parameters such as pad, attachment, min_weight, max_vertices, and max_influences are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so an agent cannot reason about cost/quality tradeoffs.

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 opening line gives a specific verb+resource+output: turn a slot's region into a clean contour mesh (or re-mesh one) with bone-heat weights. It is clearly distinguishable from skeleton-focused siblings like rig_biped/rig_ik/add_bones. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer for related tasks.

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?

Usage is only implied: creating a mesh from a slot's artwork, or re-meshing an existing mesh. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many rig_* siblings. The parenthetical '(or re-mesh a mesh)' is the only usage distinction offered.

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