set_bone_property

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals that it is a mutation ('Set') and requires edit mode, which are useful constraints. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if not in edit mode), whether the bone must be selected, or the nature of the return value. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse; the brevity is not earned because it omits essential information. While structure is clean, the content is insufficiently elaborated.

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 with 4 required parameters, no enum definitions, and zero schema description coverage, this description is severely incomplete. It does not provide a way to know valid property names, value formats, or any related resources like a list of properties. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned, and the tool appears to require background knowledge that an agent would lack. This is far from enough to use 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 adds no information about the parameters. It does not explain what values 'property' can take, what types 'value' accepts, how to specify armature_name and bone_name, or any relationships between parameters. The agent has no guidance beyond parameter names, which are generic and ambiguous.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('a property on a bone') with a contextual constraint ('in edit mode'). It distinguishes from sibling bone tools like add_bone or add_bone_constraint, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific enough to not be confused with other operations, but lacks detail on what 'property' means.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites beyond 'edit mode' mentioned. There is no mention of what situations would make this inappropriate or what other tools might be better suited (e.g., set_custom_property for custom properties). The agent is left to infer usage.

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