armature_create

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states what is created ('single root bone') but not side effects (e.g., selection, active object), state requirements, or whether it operates in object mode. This leaves transparency gaps.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter listing is efficient, though it slightly overlaps with schema information. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete. It lacks information about return value (e.g., created object name), error cases, or relation to sibling tool create_armature. Adequate for a simple creation tool but not comprehensive.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that location is a 3-element [x, y, z] array. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. While it doesn't detail defaults or optionality, it provides essential format info, making it helpful.

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) and resource (armature object with a single root bone). It distinguishes from sibling tools like armature_add_bone and armature_add_bones_chain which operate on existing armatures. The specification of 'single root bone' adds precision.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., object mode required), or when not to use it. Given many sibling tools like create_armature and armature_add_bone, explicit differentiation is needed.

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