remove_ik_retarget_chain

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

Goes well beyond annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=false): it discloses that the call runs as one undo transaction, saves the asset afterward, treats a non-existent name as a successful no-op (removed=false, saved=false, note), and reports save failure (success=false, saved=false, save_error). This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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 core action in the first sentence, then the two edge-case behaviors, then the return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating saved=false in two clauses.

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?

There is no output schema, so the inline Returns block correctly supplies the response shape. Combined with undo-transaction, no-op, and save-failure behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the not-found semantics tied to chain_name, but no format or matching rules beyond that.

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: removing the 'retarget chain with that name' from an IK Rig asset via the controller. The verb clearly separates it from add_ik_retarget_chain and rename_ik_retarget_chain. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself, and the description usefully explains the not-found and failed-save outcomes. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as rename_ik_retarget_chain or remove_ik_goal for related edits.

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