create_ik_retargeter

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the rewrite-vs-noop decision rule, that no save occurs when rigs match (saved=false plus a note), and that a failed save yields success=false with saved=false and save_error. The annotations only carry the coarse write/idempotency hints, so this added behavioral detail is genuinely valuable.

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 core action, then dense behavioral rules, then a return-value list. The return block is useful given there is no output schema, though the middle sentence is information-dense enough to require careful reading.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the write semantics, the no-op path, and the failure shape, and enumerates the return fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret the call 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 all four parameters (name, package_path, source_ik_rig_path, target_ik_rig_path) are already documented. The description restates the source/target rig roles but adds no format, path, or naming semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create and save a UIKRetargeter asset') and scopes the operation ('wiring source + target IK Rigs'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_ik_rig or add_ik_retarget_chain. An agent can identify what it produces without opening 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?

Provides clear conditional guidance on when the tool mutates vs no-ops (rewires when either rig differs, does nothing when both already match), which tells the agent when a call is meaningful. It stops short of naming alternative tools for related retargeter work, so it lacks explicit when-not/alternatives routing.

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