move_ik_solver_in_stack

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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds substantial context: one undo transaction, an automatic save, no movement on invalid indices, a special no-op path for equal indices, and failed-save behavior. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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-loads the move operation, then edge cases, then the return shape, with little wasted language. It is slightly repetitive in mentioning saved=false twice, but appropriately sized for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description supplies the return object and failure semantics, while annotations cover the mutation profile. Only minor details such as invalid-path behavior are absent, which is not enough to prevent correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful constraints: both indices are 0-based solver positions, an out-of-stack index is an error, and from_index == to_index has special semantics. It does not add further meaning for ik_rig_path beyond the schema.

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 and resource: move the solver at from_index to to_index within an IK Rig asset's solver stack via the IK Rig controller, then save. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as add_ik_solver, remove_ik_solver, and set_ik_solver_* by naming the reorder operation.

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?

The description explains edge-case behavior (out-of-range index errors, from_index == to_index is a no-op) and notes the undo transaction plus save, but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like add_ik_solver, remove_ik_solver, or set_ik_solver_settings. Usage is implied by the move operation rather than explicitly framed.

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