rig_morpher_add_target

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral constraint: the target must share the base mesh topology. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether existing targets are preserved, whether validation occurs, or how errors are reported.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The bilingual format repeats the same content, but that is appropriate for the likely audience and does not bloat the description. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple call with full schema coverage and annotations, but it omits important workflow context: it does not state that the object must already have a Morpher modifier, or what happens if it doesn't. Given the existence of sibling tools like rig_morpher_add, this prerequisite guidance would materially improve completeness.

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 defines both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic value by stating the topology requirement for the target, which is not present in the parameter schema. It also reinforces the optional behavior of `objects` by noting selection fallback, though that is already in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a morph target mesh (blendshape) to the object's Morpher'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rig_morpher_add by specifying that it adds a target to an existing Morpher, not the Morpher modifier itself.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as rig_morpher_add or rig_morpher_set_value. It does not mention that the object must already have a Morpher modifier, nor does it direct the agent to rig_morpher_add if one is missing. The only usage hint is the topology requirement, which is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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