remove_bone

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing that removal happens on the reference skeleton, that children are recursively removed when requested, and by naming a distinguishing return field ('already_absent') that encodes idempotent behavior. It stops short of stating whether the change is auto-saved or requires an explicit commit/undo step.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The trailing 'Returns:' enumeration is slightly list-like but is justified because no output schema exists, making it the only source of return-shape information.

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?

With no output schema present, the inline return-shape disclosure compensates well, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is workflow context: no statement about commit/save requirements or interference with shared skeletons, which matters for a destructive asset mutation.

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 all three parameters (bone_name, skeleton_path, remove_children) are already fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates remove_children only indirectly through the return field list and 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 and resource ('Remove a bone') and scopes it precisely to 'a skeleton's reference skeleton', which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_skeletal_mesh_socket, remove_virtual_bone, and remove_socket_from_skeleton_asset. An agent can identify the operation and its target asset without opening the 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus related tools, and no prerequisites stated. Notably absent is any mention of needing to commit pending bone edits (a commit_bone_changes sibling exists) or of skeleton sharing constraints (is_skeleton_shared exists), which an agent would need before running this destructively.

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