export_rig_kit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool exports files and that the outputs are intended for further use, but it does not mention permissions, overwrite behavior, or potential side effects. Some behavioral traits are implied but not detailed.

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 detailed but well-structured with a clear first sentence, bullet points for outputs, and an Args section. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but it is 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output contents, parameters, and workflow integration. It is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity, though missing details on error handling or directory overwrite behavior.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: out_dir (folder), character (description for prompt), kind (rig type with options humanoid or biped). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw JSON schema, though defaults and constraints on out_dir are not elaborated.

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 clearly states the tool saves a rig kit for sprite creation, lists output files (rig.json, PNGs, layout_guide.png, prompts.md, README), and explains its role in the workflow. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning that animate_rig uses the output.

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 the tool is for creating a new rig kit from scratch and that the output is used by animate_rig, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like assemble_animation or other sibling tools. The guidance is indirect.

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