add_virtual_bone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('Add a virtual bone') without disclosing whether the change is persistent, whether it modifies the skeleton asset directly, what input validation occurs, or what the return value indicates. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured with a bulleted Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple 3-parameter tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of essential detail.

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 has no annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description still needs to explain the operation's context, effect on the asset, and parameter semantics. It covers none of these beyond the most basic action, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation that likely mutates an asset.

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 provides only terse labels: 'Unreal asset path to skeleton', 'Source bone name', 'Target bone name'. This largely repeats the parameter names and does not clarify the critical relationship between source and target bones (e.g., which acts as parent/child) or any expected formats.

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 operation: 'Add a virtual bone to a skeleton.' This is a specific verb+resource pattern that distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like get_skeleton_info and the counterpart remove_virtual_bones. However, it does not explain what a virtual bone is or how source/target bones relate, which slightly limits full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., skeleton must exist), and no mention of validation or expected context. The presence of remove_virtual_bones among siblings hints at a pair, but the description does not explicitly differentiate use cases.

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