rig-set_bone_transform

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, coordinate system, or that it modifies the armature in edit mode. It does not mention what happens if the bone doesn't exist or how the change affects children or rest pose, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 filler. It clearly communicates the essential purpose and action without any redundant words, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the complexity of editing armature bones, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as coordinate systems, whether it operates in edit mode, the impact on the rig, and how it relates to other rig tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool safely.

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 should compensate, but it adds no detail beyond the schema's titles (which already say 'New bone head position [x, y, z]'). It does clarify that 'head and/or tail' are optional, but that's already implied by the schema's optional fields. No coordinate space or format details are given.

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 action (set) on a specific resource (existing bone) and the object of change (head and/or tail position). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rig-add_bone (which adds bones) and rig-set_pose_bone (which likely sets pose transforms) by focusing on the edit-mode head/tail of an existing bone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rig-set_pose_bone or object-transform_set. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., being in edit mode) or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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