build_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the ordered pipeline, that export/Spine save happens only when Spine is installed, and that a rig_report.json artifact is written. However, it says nothing about overwrite semantics for out_dir, permissions/auth, runtime or failure behavior for a heavy multi-stage 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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the full-pipeline scope front-loaded and the rig_only special case last. Dense but every clause corresponds to a distinct stage of the operation; nothing is redundant.

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 14-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers scope and the output artifact but leaves most parameter semantics, overwrite/permission behavior, and failure handling unaddressed. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 14 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It does map several parameters to pipeline steps (animate→animations, mesh/weight→auto_weight/clean_mesh, preview→make_preview, and explicitly rig_only, ik, clipping), but source, out_dir, name, source_group, fx_presets, and slot_presets remain undefined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run the complete production workflow') and enumerates the resource stages (rig, animate, mesh/weight, IK, clipping, save/export, preview, report). It implicitly distinguishes itself as the end-to-end pipeline versus siblings like rig_and_animate or apply_motion_spec, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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: 'complete production workflow' suggests running this when you want everything in one pass, and 'Set rig_only for a zero-animation rig' gives one conditional branch. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance relative to rig_and_animate, apply_motion_spec, or the individual step tools.

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