rename_ik_retarget_chain

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

Although annotations already flag destructiveHint/idempotentHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it performs a single undo transaction, auto-uniquifies the name (requiring read-back), treats an unknown chain_name as a non-error returning renamed=false/saved=false plus a note with nothing saved, and surfaces save failures via success=false, saved=false, save_error. This is rich edge-case disclosure.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by error semantics and a Returns block. Mostly efficient, though phrasing like 'with saved=false and save_error' is slightly compressed. No redundancy worth removing.

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 correctly carries the return contract (asset_path, old_name, new_name, renamed, saved, save_error, note) and covers failure modes. For a destructive mutation tool with annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it 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% and the new_name description already documents the engine suffix behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the uniqueness/read-back point and the tolerance for unknown chain_name, but adds only marginal parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 (rename a retarget chain of an IK Rig asset) and specifies it acts through the IK Rig controller. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rename_rig_element, rename_bone, and set_ik_retarget_chain_bones.

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 the usage context (renaming an existing chain, one undo transaction) but never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives such as remove_ik_retarget_chain or set_ik_retarget_chain_bones. It gives preconditions implicitly (chain_name must be a known chain) without routing guidance.

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