rig_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not state whether this mutates existing constraints, whether it is reversible, what permissions it needs, or how conflicts/errors are handled. It discloses some transform-constraint semantics ('bones copy target's transform by the mixes'), which is useful, but this is far short of what an unannotated mutation tool requires.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core transform-constraint behavior, so it is not padded. But the extreme compression produces jargon-heavy text ('the mixes') that is underspecified rather than genuinely concise for a 12-parameter tool.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. Critical details such as what the mixes control individually, what offsets accepts, and side effects on existing constraints are absent, leaving the agent under-informed to call it correctly.

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 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It surfaces the key concepts (bones, target, mixes, local, relative), implicitly covering several params, but leaves offsets, mix_shear_y, mix_scale_x/y and the null-default behavior of the y-mixes undocumented. It explains roughly half the surface and omits the rest.

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 names a specific action ('bones copy target's transform') and identifies the construct being created (a transform constraint), so the agent can infer this is a constraint-setup tool. However, the dense jargon and lack of contrast with the many sibling rig_* tools (rig_ik, rig_mesh, rig_physics) leaves it only partially distinguishing. Adequate but with clear ambiguity for selection.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus rig_ik, rig_mesh, or other rig_* siblings, nor any prerequisites. The second sentence clarifies a behavior (local+relative adds the target's local offset) but describes how the tool works, not when to reach for it. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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