create_armature

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that the armature is linked to the active scene, which is a key behavior. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., becomes the active object?), error conditions, naming conflicts, or return behavior. The minimal disclosure provides only a small hint of what happens.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently states the core action. It could arguably be even more concise, but the current structure is clean and immediately informative.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke it, but significant gaps remain. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, likely return values (though an output schema exists, it's not shown), or potential side effects beyond linking to the scene. For a creation tool with no annotations, more behavioral and parameter detail would be warranted.

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 adds no explanation for the 'name' or 'location' parameters. The defaults are visible in the schema, but their meaning, constraints, or how they affect the creation is entirely absent. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: create an armature data block and object, and link it to the active scene. It specifically identifies the resource (armature) and distinguishes it from other creation tools like create_object or create_curve by focusing on armatures.

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 purpose implies usage: use this when you need an armature. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use create_object instead). It provides no explicit 'use this when' or 'not for' guidance, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its role.

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