set_ik_solver_enabled

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes well beyond them: one undo transaction, asset is saved after mutation, enabled is read back, set_ok false for out-of-range index, changed false for no-op, and save_error on failed save. This is unusually rich behavioral 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?

The core action and its outcome rules are front-loaded, and the embedded Returns block effectively supplies the missing output schema. Sentences are dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries real information.

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 mutation tool with no formal output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the save/undo behavior, the error semantics, and the no-op case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result 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 ik_rig_path, solver_index, and enabled are already documented. The description reinforces the 0-based index and default-true semantics but adds little parameter-level meaning 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 (enable/disable) applied to a specific resource (the solver at a 0-based index of an IK Rig asset) via the IK Rig controller. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_ik_solver_settings, set_ik_solver_bones, and add/remove_ik_solver.

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 thoroughly explains edge-case outcomes (out-of-range index, already-in-state, failed save) but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like set_ik_solver_settings or move_ik_solver_in_stack. Usage is implied by the enable/disable semantics but not explicit.

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