create_armature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses coordinate units ('world metres') and the parent-ordering constraint, but it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is additive to the scene.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently details bone structure and a biped example. The biped list is useful but slightly verbose; overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers input structure well. It omits return value, error handling, and explicit confirmation that it creates a new armature in the scene.

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 thoroughly documents the bone object fields (name, head, tail, parent, connect) and their constraints, though the top-level 'name' parameter is only implied by context.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Make a skeleton from numbers.' It is clearly about creating an armature and not a generic mesh or primitive, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like limb or create_primitive.

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?

Provides a workflow hint by naming bind and pose as follow-up tools, and gives a biped example structure. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as limb or create_primitive.

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