connect_ik_goal_to_solver

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

Goes well beyond the annotations. Annotations only flag idempotentHint/destructiveHint; the description details the exact idempotent success shape (already_connected:true, saved:false, a note, nothing saved, avoiding the duplicate the raw engine call would create), the error cases (unknown goal, out-of-range solver_index), and the partial-failure behavior (success false, saved=false, save_error).

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 and behavior, then a compact Returns block that compensates for the missing output schema. Dense but every sentence adds a distinct fact (workflow role, idempotency, errors, save failure, return shape); only slight trimming would be possible.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage is adequately served: the description supplies the return shape, idempotency contract, error conditions, and save semantics. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that goal_name must be an existing goal and that solver_index is validated against range, but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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+resource ('Connect an existing IK Rig goal to a solver') and an explicit side effect (creates per-goal effector/settings, one undo transaction, saves the asset). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming add_ik_goal as the prior step and clarifying the dependency on get_/set_ik_goal_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?

Gives clear contextual usage: this tool is the required step that attaches a goal created via add_ik_goal, and is what makes get_/set_ik_goal_settings work. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling (disconnect_ik_goal_from_solver) as the undo path, so it falls just 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.