manage_bone_collection

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the per-action behavior mapping, a real constraint ('at most 1000' bones) and the return shape. However it says nothing about irreversibility or side effects of DELETE, error behavior for a non-existent collection, or required context/mode, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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-loaded one-line purpose followed by a concrete layout example and a compact Args/Returns block; nearly every sentence earns its place. Slight redundancy between the intro sentence and the action breakdown, but no padding.

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 five-parameter, multi-action mutation tool, the description covers purpose, action semantics, parameter applicability, a documented limit, and return shape (even though an output schema already exists). An agent has enough to pick the right action and fill the arguments 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description documents all five parameters, including which actions consume 'bones' and 'parent' (CREATE-only), the 1000-bone cap, and the action enum meanings. Minor residual ambiguity: 'collection_name' is described as the collection 'to act on', though for CREATE it is the name to create.

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 ('Organise an armature's bones into collections') plus the visibility toggle, and the concrete rig-layout example makes the scope unambiguous. An agent can distinguish this from object-level collection tools such as set_collection_visibility or create_collection 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?

The 'Typical rig layout' example gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the Args block explains which actions accept which parameters. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer object-level collection tools), so not a 5.

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