rig_create_bone_chain

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's additional details about pivot placement and automatic parenting add real behavioral value beyond the structured metadata. It does not describe any overwrite/replacement side effects, but that risk is already covered by the destructive hint.

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 with the core creation behavior, followed by a useful usage note and two key behavioral details. The bilingual repetition doubles the text without adding semantic content, which prevents a 5.

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?

With a fully covered schema, annotations marking the mutation, and a straightforward creation task, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. It could mention naming or orientation defaults, but these are not blocking because the schema documents the parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mainly restates the start/end/count relationship already present in the schema and adds no units, coordinate-space conventions, or default behaviors for the optional name/width/height parameters.

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 action: 'Create a chain of count bones between start and end' with concrete geometric inputs. It also clarifies the result ('each bone's pivot sits at its segment start and they are auto parented'), which distinguishes this chain-creation tool from single-bone sibling tools like rig_create_bone.

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 clear usage context: 'nearly every limb (arm, leg, spine) is built from this', so an agent knows this is the canonical tool for building bone chains. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so some selection is left to inference.

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