add_ik_solver

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: appending to the bottom of the stack, rejection of unknown types with an error, and save failure semantics (saved=false plus save_error). It still omits whether the IK Rig must already exist or any permissions requirement.

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 purpose, then type options, error behavior, and a compact Returns block. Every sentence is useful, though the inline return-type listing is a bit dense and could arguably be structured differently; there is no wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly covers the return shape. It also covers validation and save outcomes. It is nearly complete for a 2-parameter mutation tool, only lacking explanation of fields like solver_struct and solver_index and whether the rig must pre-exist.

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%, so the schema already documents ik_rig_path and solver_type. The description repeats the solver type list and default, adding the 'unknown types rejected' constraint, but does not add path format or existence requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add'), resource ('IK solver'), and target scope ('bottom of an IK Rig's solver stack'), which distinguishes it from siblings like move_ik_solver_in_stack or remove_ik_solver without needing the schema.

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 the valid solver types and the default, which is useful context for calling it, but never states when to use this versus alternatives such as create_ik_rig or add_ik_goal, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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