probe_bone_deformation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does state that the operation is temporary ('restore the pose') and that it measures mesh deformation, which implies it requires an evaluated mesh. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., mesh existence), or whether the armature must be selected. Overall, it is somewhat transparent but lacks completeness.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action (temporarily rotate, measure, restore) and ends with the output (strongest effective axis). It is concise with no redundant words, earning full marks for structure.

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 the tool's complexity (temporary mutation, measurement, restoration) and the lack of annotations, the description provides the core workflow but omits potential failure conditions, prerequisites, and any interaction with scene state beyond pose restoration. Since an output schema exists, return format is covered, but other contextual info is missing. A 3 reflects that it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 for parameter meaning. It fails to explain angle_degrees beyond its name, and does not connect it to the rotation described. The parameter names (armature_name, bone_name) are relatively self-explanatory, but the optional angle_degrees is not contextualized, leaving the agent to guess its role.

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 a specific verb and resource: temporarily rotating a bone and measuring mesh deformation to find the strongest axis. It distinguishes from siblings like inspect_bone_axes (which just inspects axes) and key_pose_bone (which sets poses) by emphasizing the deformation measurement and restoration. This is a unique, well-defined purpose.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for analyzing deformation influence or when to prefer it over inspect_bone_axes. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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