add_ik_goal

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; the description goes further by disclosing the single undo transaction, the asset save, the exact idempotency semantics (already_exists=true, saved=false, nothing saved), and the failure contract (success false, save_error). This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by default behavior, idempotency, failure, and a compact return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the density is on the higher side; still no filler.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully supplies the return object fields, and it covers defaults, idempotency, and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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, but the description adds real meaning: the default behavior when bone_name is omitted (auto leaf-bone selection), which the schema's 'Optional bone name to attach the goal to' does not convey. goal_name and ik_rig_path remain schema-only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add an IK goal to an IK Rig'), plus the scope (associated with a bone, via the IK Rig controller, then saves the asset). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_ik_solver, add_ik_retarget_chain, or connect_ik_goal_to_solver.

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?

Gives clear operating context, notably that omitting bone_name auto-picks a leaf bone, and describes the idempotent re-run path. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. set_ik_goal_settings for editing an existing goal versus re-adding), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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