rig_skin_auto_weight

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation risk. The description adds useful behavioral context: availability on 2015+, potential slowness on complex meshes, and a try/catch guard. It does not detail that existing weights may be overwritten, but the destructive annotation covers that.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, followed by brief caveats. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but acceptable and does not add significant noise.

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 destructive, single-optional-parameter operation, the description plus schema provides enough to call it correctly: the target objects, the operation type, and practical caveats. No output schema exists, but the description not specifying return behavior is a minor gap.

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?

The only parameter, 'objects', is fully documented in the schema with a bilingual description and default behavior ('omit for the current selection'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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 action ('Run the bone-heat automatic skin weighting') and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools like rig_skin_set_weight or rig_skin_set_vertex_weights, but the 'auto' nature distinguishes it from manual weight-editing tools.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as manual weight painting or rig_skin_set_weight, nor does it state the condition under which this tool should be preferred.

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