rig_morpher_set_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that passing 'frame' keys the value at that frame and omitting it uses the current frame, which is genuine added value. It does not disclose edge behaviors such as out-of-range channel handling or what happens if no Morpher exists, but the annotation bar lowers the burden.

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 compact: two short sentences per language, front-loaded with the action and key constraint. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant but serves the tool's audience; no filler or irrelevant content is present.

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 low-complexity setter with 100% schema coverage, 4 parameters all documented, and annotations already flagging destructiveness, the description covers the key non-obvious behavior (frame-specific keying). It is reasonably complete; a note about requiring an existing Morpher modifier or selection behavior would improve it, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3: the description restates the frame-keying semantics ('with frame the value is keyed at that frame') but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter. No extra semantic value is provided for channel indexing, weight bounds, or the objects list.

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 states a specific verb and resource: setting a morph channel's weight (0-100) to drive deformation. It is clear and implicitly distinct from siblings like rig_skin_set_weight or rig_morpher_add_target through the 'morph channel' resource, though it never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.

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 related rig tools such as rig_skin_set_weight, rig_morpher_add_target, or ctrl_set_value. The description implies a purpose ('to drive the deformation') but provides no context for choosing it over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., object must already have a Morpher modifier), and no exclusions.

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