remove_bone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool deletes a bone, indicating destructiveness, but it fails to mention any consequences (e.g., effect on child bones, undo behavior, or required permissions). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 short (one phrase), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It omits essential context and does not front-load any helpful scoping information. Every word is present but carries minimal value.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, this description is wholly inadequate. It does not specify which armature, which bone, or any edge-case behavior, leaving an agent with too much uncertainty to call it safely and correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters 'armature' and 'bone' at all. An agent must infer that 'armature' refers to the parent armature and 'bone' to the bone name, but nothing in the description adds meaning beyond the raw schema property names.

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 '删除骨骼' (delete bone) clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (bone), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_bone or list_bones, and the exact scope (e.g., bone within an armature) is only implied by the parameters.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many bone-related operations (add_bone, set_bone, list_bones), but the description gives no context for choosing remove_bone over them, nor any prerequisites or conditions.

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