add_bone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation and clarifies head/tail positions, but does not disclose side effects, requirements (e.g., object must be an armature), or what happens upon failure. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and is easy to parse. Every word 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?

The description lacks crucial context such as that the tool operates on an existing armature, what coordinate system is used, or what the 'object' parameter refers to. While an output schema exists, the description does not clarify success conditions or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for a mutation operation.

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. It only clarifies head and tail as 3D positions, leaving object, name, and parent unexplained. The agent can guess that 'object' is the armature name, but the description does not confirm this, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 'Add a bone to an armature,' identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as set_bone_property or get_bone_info by focusing on the act of adding a new bone. The mention of head and tail as 3D positions reinforces the specific operation.

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 implies usage (when you need to add a bone) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools like create_armature or set_bone_property are not referenced, so the agent must infer context.

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