rig.create_armature

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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds only thin metadata — 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and a policy note — but never discloses what the operation does to scene state, whether it replaces or augments existing rig data, or what side effects may occur.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. The first sentence merely echoes the tool name, and the remaining content is meta-metadata instead of user-facing guidance.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is wholly inadequate for a mutating, non-idempotent operation with a complex undocumented bones parameter. An agent cannot determine what bone data to supply, what the operation requires beforehand, or what it will change in the scene.

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 50%, and the critical semantic parameters — name and the bones array, which has no item schema describing required bone fields — are undocumented. The description adds zero parameter information and therefore does not compensate for the gap.

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 only restates the command name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `rig.create_armature`') and appends operational metadata (risk, maturity, policy). It never states the verb+resource — that this tool creates a new armature object in the scene. An agent cannot tell it apart from siblings like blender_rig_bind or blender_rig_create_control based on this text.

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 on when to use this tool, what prerequisites apply (e.g., active object, edit mode), or how it relates to alternatives like blender_rig_bind and blender_rig_rigify_generate. The 'Requirements' sentence refers to Harness argument-checking policy, not usage conditions.

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