Create a new armature with a chain of bones using specified properties like name, head, tail, and optional parent, roll, connect, and deform flags.
新建骨架；bones=[{name, head, tail, parent?, roll?, connect?, deform?}] 一次建骨链。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| bones | No | ||
| location | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the input format. It does not mention side effects like creating a new object in the scene, whether existing armatures are affected, error handling, or any prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and the key parameter format. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 tool that creates an armature with a bone chain, the description covers only the bones parameter partially. It omits the 'location' parameter semantics, any return value (though no output schema exists), and does not specify what happens in the scene (e.g., object creation, naming conventions). The description is insufficient for an agent to call this correctly without further assumptions.
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 explains the 'bones' parameter structure with optional fields, which is helpful, but it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'head', 'tail', or the 'location' parameter. The description adds value for bones but leaves other parameters under-documented.
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 tool's purpose: '新建骨架' (create armature) and provides the exact bone format for building a bone chain at once. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_bone which operate on existing armatures, and from other creation tools like 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?
The description implies this tool is for creating a new armature with a bone chain in one go, which hints at when to use it versus add_bone for incremental bone addition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.