createArticulatedCharacterRig

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 genuine behavioral traits: the spine is trigonometrically locked so the body never separates when leaning, paths are boolean-unioned, and the glow is bounds-grown to avoid clipping. What it omits is equally important for a creation tool — whether a new composition is made or layers are added to the existing one, what side effects occur, and any permission/plugin requirements.

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?

It is a single sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler, but it is overloaded with parenthetical jargon and reads as a feature dump rather than a scannable definition. Splitting the core action from the rendering guarantees would improve parseability without adding length.

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 creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient — it conveys what is built and key visual invariants. The remaining gap is what the caller gets back (a comp, a set of layers, a precomp) and whether the operation requires an open composition, which no structured field covers.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including the boy/girl anatomy and the enum values — the description largely restates these. Its only real added value is the '7-joint' framing, which implicitly maps to the seven rotation fields in poseKeyframes (arms, legs, head, torso, hair/tie sway).

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a 3D 7-joint articulated character silhouette rig', which an agent can immediately map to a layer-creation action and distinguish from siblings like create3DSaberSymbolOrPortal or createTextLayer. The remainder is a dense feature list (Merge Paths Type 2, Grow Bounds + Glow2) that adds specificity but obscures the core statement.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what prerequisites apply (3D renderer enabled, Glow2/Merge Paths plugin availability, active composition required). Nor does it explain when to pick posePreset versus supplying custom poseKeyframes, even though both are exposed.

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