Rigging : controles, liens, alignement, parentage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does convey the main artifacts produced: control nulls with UI widgets, expression-based links, layer alignment/distribution, and parenting. It stops short of revealing side effects — whether existing layer transforms are overwritten, whether new layers are inserted into the comp, or how reversible the operations are. The schema adds a little (keepTransform default true), but the overall behavioral contract remains thin.

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 compact — two sentences covering the tool's umbrella purpose plus one action detail — and is front-loaded with 'Construit des rigs'. However, the metaphor 'comme un monteur' adds little (a monteur is a film editor, not a rigging artist) and the placement of the action=essential sentence is arbitrary, since exportMogrt and bounds actions are left out of the prose.

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 tool with 23 parameters, 7 actions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete: it narrates only control/link/align/parent/essential and leaves bounds and exportMogrt to be inferred solely from parameter descriptions. It also says nothing about prerequisites (open comp, selected layers) or what the tool returns after building a rig. An agent would need to open the schema and still guess at behavior for two of the seven actions.

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 70%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents most parameters with per-action notes (e.g., 'link : propriete a piloter'). The description adds action-level semantics that help interpret parameter groups, such as 'liens par expression' for link's path/target/targetPath/suffix. But uncovered parameters — parent, spacing, overwrite, distributeH/distributeV — are not explained by the description either, so it does not fill the remaining 30% gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Construit des rigs') and enumerates concrete operations: control nulls with sliders/colors/checkboxes, expression links (pickwhip), alignment/distribution, and parenting. It also clarifies the 'essential' action in a second sentence. However, it never names or differentiates sibling tools, so the boundaries against ae_property or ae_animate are left implicit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings — nothing contrasts it with ae_animate (animation), ae_property (expressions), or ae_layer (hierarchy). The action enum in the schema hints at internal sub-uses, but the description itself provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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