remove_ik_goal

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a single undo transaction, asset save, cascading detach from every solver effector and retarget chain, exact idempotent-return semantics, and save-failure behavior.

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 action, then the side effects, then idempotency and failure semantics. Dense but every sentence adds distinct operational value; the returns block is warranted since there is 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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape and the two edge cases (already-absent goal, failed save). Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'by name' and references the controller but adds no format, path, or naming detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 precise verb+resource ('Remove an IK goal from an IK Rig by name through the IK Rig controller') and explicitly frames it as the inverse of add_ik_goal. An agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

Gives useful context ('Inverse of add_ik_goal', cascade behavior) but never says when-not to use it or how it differs from close siblings like disconnect_ik_goal_from_solver, remove_ik_solver, or remove_ik_retarget_chain. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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