add_bone

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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds that it must run in edit mode and requires the native Blender UI, which is an important behavioral constraint for headless or background workflows. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context is useful.

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 a single concise sentence that communicates the core action and key constraints without redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, but the description explains neither the parameter semantics nor the expected behavior beyond 'add bone'. The edit mode/UI note is useful, but critical operational details (e.g., how head/tail are interpreted, what armature_name does, what the collection parameter means) are missing, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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?

The schema has 6 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter details whatsoever. Parameter names like head, tail, and collection are minimally informative but the description fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions, leaving crucial meaning (units, coordinate handling, defaults behavior) unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Tambah' (add) and resource 'tulang ke armature' (bone to armature), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_bone, rename_bone, or create_armature. The edit mode and UI requirement are additional context.

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 states 'edit mode; memerlukan UI di Blender asli', which provides clear context that the tool requires the user to be in Blender's edit mode with an active UI. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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