create_rigging_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context — the either/or input contract, the 'completed Meshy task' prerequisite, the height default and 0.1–15 range, and a quality caveat about humanoid topology. But it never states that this is an asynchronous job that returns a task ID to be polled via retrieve_rigging_task/stream_rigging_task, whether credits are consumed, or whether it is idempotent.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, input routing, parameter semantics, and a quality caveat. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover the full call contract. It handles inputs well but is silent on the return value (presumably a task ID), the async lifecycle, and how the result is later fetched, leaving the agent to infer the polling pattern from sibling names. Adequate for a first call, incomplete for the whole workflow.

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 declares zero properties, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning — and it supplies genuine detail: input_task_id vs model_url exclusivity, height_meters default 1.7 with a 0.1–15 range, and texture_image_url being optional PNG base color. The gap is that these four documented parameters do not appear in the schema at all, so an agent validating against the schema would see an empty object.

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+resource: 'Auto-rig a 3D character model for animation.' Combined with the create_/retrieve_/list_/stream_/delete_ rigging family of siblings, an agent can tell this is the task-creation entry point without opening any schema. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

It gives concrete input routing: 'Provide either input_task_id ... or model_url', which tells the agent the two mutually exclusive paths and which input type each expects. It also flags the best-fit scenario ('works best on humanoid characters with a clear limb/body structure'). It does not say when to prefer this over the sibling create_* tools or what to do when the source task is not yet complete.

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