disconnect_ik_goal_from_solver

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: one undo transaction, idempotent no-op semantics with was_connected:false/saved:false and nothing saved, an out-of-range solver_index error, and failed-save behavior (success false, saved:false, save_error). These are exactly the side-effect and failure details annotations alone can't convey.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences plus a Returns block, front-loaded with the core action and side effect; no filler, and with no output schema the embedded return shape is warranted rather than redundant.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, undo scope, idempotency, error conditions, save failure, and the return payload. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 three params are already documented, but the description adds real meaning: solver_index must index an existing entry or it errors, and goal_name/solver_index together define what gets disconnected. Some value added over the schema baseline.

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 (disconnect), the exact resources (a goal from a solver), the mechanics (removes that solver's per-goal effector/settings through the IK Rig controller), and names the inverse sibling connect_ik_goal_to_solver, letting an agent place it precisely in the family.

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?

It identifies the reciprocal operation explicitly ('Inverse of connect_ik_goal_to_solver'), which routes the agent to the correct sibling for the opposite action, and clarifies the idempotent case. It stops short of an explicit conditional 'use X when / avoid Y when' rule but the inverse framing is clear usage context.

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