attach_kinefx_deform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the source-mode differences, that map_joints remaps Mixamo-like names onto the capture skeleton, and that proof hashes deform geometry at clip start vs end and must differ. It omits scene-mutation/idempotency and error behavior, but adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core transformation, then four tightly packed lines that each add distinct information. The telegraphic arrow/fragment style is efficient but occasionally cryptic, costing a little readability without wasting space.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. For a 9-parameter, zero-coverage tool the description covers the key mode selection and behavioral flags well, though it lacks prerequisites (e.g. an existing capture/skin) and full parameter mapping.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains source, map_joints, and proof semantics, and ties rest_path/capture_path/anim_path to the source='nodes' mode, plus 'under mcp_*' hints at name/parent_path. It leaves clip and parent_path largely unaddressed, but covers most of the 9 parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and composite resource: 'Skin + capture pose + clip → kinefx::jointdeform'. An agent can tell this builds a deform node from three inputs, distinct from siblings like import_fbx_animation or map_kinefx_joints. The arrow notation is jargon-dense but still conveys the operation.

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?

Gives conditional guidance on the two operating modes via source ('capybara' uses a testgeometry pipeline; 'nodes' wires explicit paths), which tells the agent which path to take. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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