rig_skin_set_vertex_weights

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds that weights are 0-1 and that normalization is involved, but doesn't disclose whether existing weights are replaced or merged, or whether the operation can be undone. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, bilingual, with the core function front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the English translation mirrors the Chinese without redundancy.

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 covers the core operation and parameter semantics, but for a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, it could disclose more about behavior (e.g., whether weights are replaced or accumulated, whether normalization is automatic). The sibling list shows related rig_skin tools, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from rig_skin_set_weight.

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 parameters. The description adds the concept of 'full influence' and normalization, but doesn't provide additional detail beyond the schema's {bone, weight} structure. Baseline 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 states the tool's function: setting one vertex's weights across many bones in bulk, with a {bone, weight} list. It distinguishes itself from the sibling rig_skin_set_weight (singular) by emphasizing 'many bones' and 'full influence at once'.

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 explains the intended use case: configuring a vertex's complete influence at once, especially with normalization. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of 'bulk' and 'full influence' implies when it's appropriate versus single-weight tools.

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