rig_create_bone

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds that bones are the foundation of rigging and that a single bone is created, but it does not disclose possible side effects such as name conflicts, overwriting, or what happens if no parameters are provided.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the action and parameters, while the second adds useful workflow context. The bilingual repetition is a minor redundancy but not a significant burden.

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 simple creation tool, the description plus schema adequately covers what is created, the key parameters, defaults, and the follow-up tool. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not required; only explicit destructive side-effect details are mildly missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines each parameter, including defaults for position and direction. The description largely paraphrases these fields without adding units, coordinate-space details, or axis conventions, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific action ('创建一根骨骼' / 'Create one bone') and clearly names the resource, root position, direction, and dimensions. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling rig_create_bone_chain by stating that this creates a single bone before chaining them into a limb.

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 provides a clear workflow: create one bone first, then use rig_create_bone_chain to form a limb. It names the relevant sibling and the ordering, though it does not discuss exclusions or alternative conditions in more depth.

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