remove_ik_solver

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: one undo transaction, the implicit asset save, out-of-range index behavior, and explicit failure semantics (saved=false plus save_error). This is exactly the extra information an agent needs for an irreversible 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 action and its scope, then adds the error and save semantics, then the return shape. No filler sentences, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 present, the description fully specifies the return object (asset_path, removed_solver_index, solver_count, removed, saved, save_error), so the agent knows both the mutation and save outcome. Combined with the annotations and the error condition, nothing needed to call this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (ik_rig_path, solver_index) are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates the 0-based index meaning. The added out-of-range error note is behavioral rather than parameter syntax, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Remove), resource (the solver at a 0-based index), and scope (from the solver stack of an IK Rig asset), which cleanly separates it from the add_ik_solver and move_ik_solver_in_stack siblings. An agent can identify the operation without inspecting 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?

The context (removing a solver from an IK Rig's stack) makes the use case clear, and it flags the out-of-range index error condition. It does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools like move_ik_solver_in_stack or set_ik_solver_enabled, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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