remove_retarget_pose

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: it saves the asset afterward, discloses the honest-error case for the built-in default pose, and details the failed-save outcome (success=false, saved=false, save_error).

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 and inverse relationship, then layers edge-case behavior efficiently. The enumerated Returns block is somewhat long but earns its place since no output schema exists.

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, idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation side effects (asset save), idempotency outcomes, error paths, and the full return shape – everything an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces 'by name' and the controller path but does not mention the optional source_or_target parameter, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove a retarget pose from an IK Retargeter by name through its controller') and explicitly labels itself the inverse of create_retarget_pose, letting an agent distinguish it from sibling removal and retarget tools without opening a 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 clear usage context: removing an absent pose is treated as success, and the engine default pose cannot be removed. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond those edge cases.

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