rig_and_animate

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 add real context: make_editable requires the Spine CLI, kind is reserved with both values rigging identically, and a summary with file paths is returned. However, it is silent on the behavior of the seven undocumented flags (ik, clipping, clean_mesh, auto_weight, fx_presets, slot_presets, source_group), so key mutation traits remain opaque.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clean aligned parameter list that is easy to scan. Padding is minimal, though the choice to document only a subset of parameters leaves the list structurally incomplete.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only 6 parameters and omits all seven of the optional flags an agent would need to reason about. It does compensate for the missing output schema by summarizing the return value, but the parameter gaps are too large for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains source formats, the out_dir layout, name defaulting, anims defaults, and the make_editable side effect. But 7 of 13 parameters receive no explanation at all, leaving more than half the surface undocumented.

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 states a concrete verb (build), the transformation (rig + animate), and the precise artifact (a Spine skeleton) from a defined input (a cut-up character). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like pack_atlas, make_project, and export_project, which operate on different artifacts and stages.

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 implied rather than stated: the source is described as a .psd or PhotoshopToSpine export folder, which signals the required precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many workflow siblings (build_workflow, make_project). The agent must infer when this step belongs in a pipeline.

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