rig_quadruped

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so extensively: it explains required vs optional layers, case-insensitive naming conventions, missing-part handling, leg_type construction differences, generated bone structures, physics strand behavior, exact loops vs one-shot poses, event emissions, and what seed/exaggerate control.

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 description is long but front-loaded with the core action and structured into layers, leg_type, and clips sections. Given the complexity of quadruped rigging, most detail earns its place, though the density and length could make rapid scanning harder for an agent.

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 rigging tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is highly complete regarding layer requirements, leg types, generated clips, events, and parameter effects. The main omission is any explanation of the required project input, leaving a gap in the call contract.

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 for all seven parameters. It documents clips, speeds, seed, leg_type values, exaggerate, and implies physics through the physics-strands note, but it never explains the required 'project' parameter or clarifies the exact effect of the physics boolean.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rig a four-legged animal from its layers and build its clips in one call.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling rigging tools for bipeds, serpents, fliers, and generic creatures by specifying the quadruped layer set and leg types.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies (four-legged animal from existing layers, with required and optional part lists) and describes default clip generation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as rig_creature or make_quadruped_sample or state when not to use this tool.

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