armature_add_bones_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the requirement for at least 2 joints to form 1 bone, but does not explain side effects (e.g., where bones are added relative to existing bones), permissions, or error handling. The description lacks depth on mutability and safety.

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 concise with a single introductory line and a clear Args list. No unnecessary words. Each sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter usage but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., armature must exist), return behavior, or error cases. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 add meaning. It explains each parameter: armature_name (target), chain_name (base name with .001 suffix), joints (list of positions, minimum 2 points), parent_bone (parent for first bone). This adds significant context 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 tool adds a chain of connected bones, with examples like spine, arm, finger. It distinguishes from siblings such as armature_add_bone (single bone) and armature_create (create armature). The verb 'add' and noun 'chain of connected bones' are specific.

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 examples of when to use (spine, arm, finger) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives (e.g., armature_add_bone for single bones). Usage is implied but no exclusions or comparative guidance.

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