commit_bone_changes

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the peer tools' listener-notification behavior and the interop scenarios that motivate this tool, plus a full return shape. It does not elaborate on what exactly is made 'destructive' by saving, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the sibling-routing caveat, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, though the all-caps emphasis is slightly louder than necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully supplies the return object. With annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, the remaining need is guidance, which the description delivers well. Only the destructive semantics of 'save' are left implicit.

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% and the force parameter is documented in the schema itself ('mark dirty and save even when no-op'). The description's 'mark dirty + save' aligns with the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Mark a skeleton dirty + save it') and immediately distinguishes itself from named siblings (add_bone, remove_bone, rename_bone, set_bone_transform). An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from the nearby bone tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ('YOU DO NOT NEED THIS after add_bone / remove_bone / rename_bone / set_bone_transform') and names the exact cases it does cover (batched mutations outside the modifier, asset imports that bypassed it). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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