rig-add_bone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for revealing side effects. It only mentions coordinate space; it does not state that the armature must be in edit mode, what happens if a bone with the same name exists, or whether the operation mutates the armature in place. For a mutation tool, this lacks critical behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It delivers the core purpose and a critical coordinate-space clarification efficiently.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits vital context such as the need for edit mode, duplicate-name handling, and what the tool returns or changes. The coordinate-space note is helpful but not enough for a complete understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key semantic that head/tail are in armature-local space, which is not in the schema. However, it does not add further meaning for the 'name' or 'armature' parameters, which remain described only by their schema titles.

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 adds an edit bone to an armature, using a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('edit bone'). The parenthetical 'head/tail in armature-local space' further distinguishes it from sibling tools like rig-add_armature or rig-set_bone_transform, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the description and tool name: use this when you need to add a new bone to an armature. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or point to alternatives such as rig-add_armature for creating the armature itself or rig-set_bone_transform for modifying an existing bone, so guidance is indirect.

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