rig_create_point_helper

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

The annotations already state that the operation is not read-only and is destructive, and the description's 'Create' verb agrees with that. The description adds only 'lightweight' and common usage, not deeper behavioral details such as what happens to the scene, selection, or default naming. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but adds limited new behavioral context.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded, with the resource and purpose stated in one bilingual pair of sentences. There is no filler, and both language versions earn their place for an international tool surface.

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 simple creation tool with three optional, well-described parameters, the description plus schema covers the core call. It does not mention return values or side effects (e.g., whether the new helper is selected or how name conflicts are handled), and it does not say why it should be chosen over rig_create_dummy or rig_create_bone; these gaps keep it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the name, size, and position parameters are already documented with types and a default for position. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but because the schema carries the full burden, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('Point helper'), and adds the common purpose as an IK/constraint target. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling helpers like rig_create_dummy or rig_create_bone, so it misses the full 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'often used as an IK or constraint target' implies a typical usage context, which helps an agent decide when to call it. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the rig_* siblings, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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