Add a new armature to Blender with a name and location, enabling rigging for animation.
Create a new armature object.
Args: name: Armature name. location: [x, y, z] position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Armature | |
| location | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'Create' without disclosing side effects, what happens on success, whether it adds to the active collection, or any state changes. It doesn't mention if it's destructive or reversible, which is a significant gap for a creation 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 extremely concise, with the purpose stated first and an 'Args' section that is directly to the point. No unnecessary words or repetition; it's well-structured for a simple two-parameter tool.
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 creation tool without annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an armature is used for, how it integrates with the scene, or what the return value is. It also fails to differentiate from similar object creation tools, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'name' and 'location' with brief explanations ('Armature name', '[x, y, z] position'), which adds minimal meaning over the schema's types and defaults. It doesn't clarify coordinate space, units, or how location is applied, but it does provide basic semantics.
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 'Create a new armature object' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from generic create_object by naming 'armature', and from create_humanoid_rig by being more basic. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_object or mention the rigging context, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_object or create_humanoid_rig. There is no mention of prerequisites, scene context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when armature creation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.