remove_retargeter_op

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and not idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: child ops are removed too, the whole thing is one undo transaction, the asset is saved, an out-of-range index errors, and a failed save yields saved=false with 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 purpose, then layers error/save semantics, then gives the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 supplies the full return shape plus success/failure conditions and save semantics. For a mutating, cascading operation this is complete enough for an agent 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 coverage is 100% and op_index already documents '0-based op index', so the description largely repeats the schema. It adds the conceptual link that the index points into the op stack, but no syntax or format detail beyond that. 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) and resource (op at a 0-based index, with child ops, from the IK Retargeter op stack) and even the mechanism (through its controller). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like add_retargeter_op, get_retargeter_op_info, and set_retargeter_op_settings.

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 implies correct usage (0-based index, out-of-range is an error) and discloses the cascade behavior, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any preconditions (e.g., needing a valid controller/asset). Usage context remains inferable rather than explicit.

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