delete_bone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a bone, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of child bones, need for certain modes, irreversibility). This is critical for a mutation tool and is entirely absent.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 operation with two parameters and no annotation support, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on error conditions (e.g., bone not found, armature not found), mode requirements, and any impact on the rest of the armature. An agent would be acting without full understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 by explaining the parameters. It implies that bone_name identifies the bone and armature_name identifies the armature, but does not explicitly state their roles, expected formats, or constraints (e.g., exact names vs. partial). The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 (delete) and the target (a bone from an armature), which is unambiguous given the context of siblings like add_bone and list_bones. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from other delete tools (e.g., delete_geometry), but the resource is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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, nor any prerequisites such as the bone existing or the armature being in edit mode. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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