set_bone_property

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the description's only behavioral addition is the list of properties. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifying bone geometry, affecting rigging), error conditions, or the impact of setting head/tail on connected bones. With annotations covering idempotency, the description adds minimal 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the operation and enumerates the key property names 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 the four required parameters with no schema descriptions and no enums, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on value formats for each property (e.g., head/tail as 3D vectors), the relationship between object and bone, and potential failure modes. Even with an output schema, the agent may struggle to construct valid calls without additional context.

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 lists the allowed values for the 'property' parameter, which clarifies what can be set and implies value types (e.g., roll is numeric, use_connect is boolean, head/tail likely arrays). However, it does not explain the exact format of head/tail arrays or the meaning of 'object' and 'bone', leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Set'), a resource ('bone property'), and enumerates the exact property names (roll, envelope_distance, head, tail, use_connect). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bone_info (read) and set_pose_bone_transform (pose transforms) by implying edit-mode bone attributes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_pose_bone_transform or batch_set_property. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must be an armature) or context (edit mode vs pose mode).

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