add_retargeter_op

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

With annotations only declaring readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: one undo transaction, automatic asset save, error conditions for invalid op types, and save-failure semantics. It also documents the return fields, which is valuable because there is no output schema.

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 dense but front-loaded, starting with the action and target resource, then covering side effects, errors, and returns. Every sentence carries useful information, especially the return object since no output schema is provided.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers the default operation type, error cases, undo/save behavior, and return shape, while annotations cover the basic mutation safety profile.

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 both inputs are already documented. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the default op type and clarifying that op_index and op_name are outputs reflecting engine placement.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: add a retarget op to an IK Retargeter asset's op stack. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as remove_retargeter_op, get_retargeter_op_info, or set_retargeter_op_settings.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for adding a retarget op. The description notes the default op type and that unknown or duplicate singleton op types are errors, but it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like set_retargeter_op_settings or remove_retargeter_op.

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