godot_configure_bone_attachment

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

All annotations are false (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so they provide no behavioral signal. The description only says 'attach', implying a mutation but without disclosing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or impact on the scene. With no annotation support, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the core action. This is an ideal length for a tool description.

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 six parameters (bone_name, scale_offset, position_offset, skeleton_node_path, rotation_offset_deg, attachment_node_name) and an output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain how offsets work, how to choose a skeleton path, or what the result of the operation is. An agent would need to inspect the schema and possibly the documentation to use it correctly. The annotations provide no additional context. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. Although the input schema itself provides per-parameter descriptions (e.g., bone_name, scale_offset), the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already has. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not. Nevertheless, the schema itself is reasonably self-explanatory, so it earns a 2 rather than 1.

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 states a specific verb ('attach'), a resource ('props, weapons, or collision nodes'), and a target ('named Skeleton3D bones'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_configure_physics_joint or godot_generate_ragdoll, which serve different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. There is no comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual cues for selection.

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