set_bone_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the action (setting a property) and the return format ('Confirmation dict with bone name, property, and new value'). It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a mutation tool, the essential behavior is transparent.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and informative, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity, no annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers all inputs, valid property options, and the output structure, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by detailing each parameter: armature_name and bone_name as strings, property with an enumerated list of allowed values, and value with its role. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Set a property on a bone in an armature.' It lists the specific properties that can be set, such as roll, length, use_connect, etc., making it distinct from sibling tools like set_brush_property or set_camera_property which target different objects.

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 by specifying the function (setting bone properties) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_pose or add_bone. However, the context of armature and bone names is clear, and the list of properties guides appropriate use.

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