set_ik_retarget_chain_bones

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: per-change undo transactions, auto-save after the mutation, the distinction between hard errors and soft no-op results (start_bone_set/end_bone_set/goal_set false), and the save-failure path (success=false, saved=false, save_error). This is exactly the operational 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-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the full outcome taxonomy, then siblings, then the return shape. It is dense and fairly long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information, so little could be cut without losing behavior.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the entire return object (asset_path, chain_name, bones, goal, *_set flags, changed, saved, save_error, note). Combined with the error/no-op/save-failure semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: at least one of start_bone/end_bone/goal_name must be supplied or it errors, a goal_name with no matching rig goal is not an error but a soft false, and a value the chain already has is left unchanged. These are semantics the schema does not convey.

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 (change), resource (start/end bone and/or IK goal of an existing retarget chain in an IK Rig asset), and mechanism (through the IK Rig controller, each change an undo transaction, then save). It explicitly names the sibling operations add_ik_retarget_chain and rename_ik_retarget_chain, so an agent can distinguish it from neighbors 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 operating context: it mutates an existing chain, requires at least one of the three fields (else error), and routes the agent to add/rename siblings for other operations. It does not spell out a full when-not-to-use statement (e.g. versus set_ik_bone_settings or set_ik_goal_settings), but the context is unambiguous.

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