rig.add_armature

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the creation action but does not mention side effects (e.g., selection change, default bone, naming collisions), permissions, or return value.

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, efficient sentence with no superfluous text. It is well-structured for its minimal content, though it lacks the front-loaded depth that would elevate it to a 5.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to mention defaults for location, naming constraints, or that a skeleton object will be created at the specified location with no bones.

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 coverage is 0% for descriptions, but the schema includes titles ('Name for the new armature object', 'World location of the armature [x, y, z]') that convey meaning. The description adds no additional interpretation, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 specific verb 'Create' and resource 'armature (skeleton) object'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like rig.add_bone that operate on bones within an existing armature.

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. Lacks prerequisites, such as requiring an active scene or indicating that an armature must not already exist with the same name. No mention of when not to use it.

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