rig_skin_set_weight

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description warns about a critical behavioral consequence: vertex weights are normalized to 1.0, so setting one bone to 1.0 wipes out all other bone influences. This is exactly the kind of operationally important context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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: it states the action, then immediately presents the critical warning. Both languages earn their place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-assignment mutation tool, the description gives the essential behavior and the most important destructive caveat. The optional objects parameter and value ranges are already fully described in the schema. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens if the target is not skinned, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents every parameter's meaning. The description adds the normalization context relevant to the weight parameter but does not otherwise enrich parameter semantics beyond 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 states a precise verb (set), a specific resource (one vertex's weight for one bone), and the exact scope: single vertex, single bone. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rig_skin_set_vertex_weights and rig_skin_auto_weight.

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 implies usage for a single vertex-bone weight assignment, which differentiates it from bulk or automatic weighting siblings, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no named alternative or exclusion, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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