manage_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which the description does not contradict. It adds that the tool edits skeletal meshes, but doesn't disclose that some actions (e.g., get_skeleton_info, list_bones) are read-only despite the global destructive hint, nor does it explain asset saving or impact.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence covers all major action categories with no filler or repetition. It is concise and easy to parse, earning its place.

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 tool with 29 actions and 43 parameters, the description is sparse. It doesn't explain that an 'action' is required, how assets are selected, or that some operations are read-only despite the destructive hint. No output schema exists, so the agent receives no guidance on return values or operation flows.

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%, and all 43 parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents each parameter.

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: 'Edit skeletal meshes' and lists specific capabilities (add sockets, configure physics assets, set skin weights, create morph targets). This distinguishes it from generic tools like manage_asset, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when editing skeletal meshes, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The context signals show siblings like manage_asset and animation_physics, making the lack of guidance a gap.

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