rig_strand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the chain follows the part's centre line and that the mesh is heat-weighted, which is useful. However, it doesn't state permissions, whether it modifies the part or creates new objects, what happens on re-run, or the interaction between physics preset and existing rig data. Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, this leaves substantial behavioral gaps.

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?

Very compact: one sentence plus a clipped shorthand line for defaults. Information is front-loaded and terse. The shorthand line is somewhat cryptic ('root_end: auto(top)|top|bottom|left|right.'), but not wasteful.

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 7-parameter rigging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage should explain much more: defaults for slot/project, effect of n_bones and detail, what 'parent' does, and the lifecycle/side effects of running the rig. As written, an agent would have to guess on several parameters.

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. It partially explains root_end (values: auto, top, bottom, left, right) and physics (preset name or 'none'), which mitigates the two most ambiguous params. But slot, project, detail, n_bones, and parent are left entirely undocumented. With 5 of 7 params unexplained at 0% schema coverage, this is inadequate.

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+resource: building a bone chain, heat-weighted mesh, and physics for a strand-like part (hair lock/cape/ribbon/tail). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_chain, rig_mesh, and rig_physics by declaring it does all three in one call, which is useful differentiation. It names concrete target parts, so the agent knows the domain.

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 description implies when to use it (strand-like parts) but gives no explicit when/when-not or pointers to alternatives. It slightly nods to alternatives by emphasizing 'in one call', hinting that add_chain/rig_mesh/rig_physics exist separately, but doesn't state the tradeoff. Adequate but thin.

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