blender_armature_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool creates an armature from bone definitions and describes the fields involved, which is a minimally adequate disclosure. However, it does not mention whether the armature is added to the current scene, how connected bones behave beyond what the schema says, or any coordinate-space assumptions.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and immediately gives the necessary context for how bones are specified. Every sentence contributes useful selection and usage 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?

The tool has three parameters, one required, and a fully documented schema, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It conveys the core purpose and the main use case. It could add guidance on scene placement or return behavior, but given the schema coverage and simple create operation, the description is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description helpfully summarizes the key bone fields (head/tail, parent, connection, roll) but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an armature from a list of bone definitions.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic object creation tools by focusing on armature/bone construction. The mention of precise skeleton construction from known bone positions further clarifies its unique role among the sibling tools.

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 says 'Use this for precise skeleton construction from known bone positions,' which gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough that an agent can select it confidently.

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