rig_set_bone_size

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation only affects display and does not alter skinning/weights. This is especially useful given destructiveHint=true, though it does not detail reversibility or exact overwrite behavior.

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?

Two compact bilingual sentences clearly convey the purpose and the key non-skinning caveat. No filler or redundant content; the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 setter with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers operation scope, bulk mode, and the critical display-only distinction. A minor gap is that omitted width/height behavior could be explicitly clarified, but the schema already implies conditional setting.

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 100%, and each parameter already has clear semantics (width/height set only if >=0; objects optional with current selection fallback). The description reinforces bulk behavior but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific action (set width/height), the resource (bones), and the bulk mode. It also explicitly notes that it is display-only and does not affect skinning, which differentiates it from rig_skin_* sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool: when the user wants to change bone display size without affecting the rig/skinning. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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