set_ik_solver_settings

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call runs as one undo transaction, then saves the asset, that only present fields are applied idempotently, that ClampMin/ClampMax bounds are enforced server-side, and exactly what changed/saved/save_error mean on no-op and failure paths. This is rich mutation-behavior detail the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints alone cannot convey.

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 purpose, then semantics (partial update, per-solver keys, bounds), then failure/no-op behavior, then the return shape. Dense but every clause carries actionable information; no filler sentences.

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 present, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (ik_rig_path, solver_index, solver_type, success, changed, saved, save_error, note) and covers the edge cases an agent must interpret. Complete for a nested-object mutation tool.

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 already 100%, but the schema only calls `settings` a vague 'object with solver-type-specific fields'. The description supplies the concrete FullBodyIK key names with valid numeric ranges and the naming convention for other solver types, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema's nested open object.

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 ('Set detailed solver-specific settings on a solver in an IK Rig'), clearly distinct from sibling bone/enabled tools like set_ik_solver_bones and set_ik_solver_enabled. An agent can tell this mutates arbitrary solver settings without opening the 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 real operating context: it is a partial update (only supplied fields applied, idempotent), and it documents which key style applies per solver type (FullBodyIK snake_case vs camelCase for Limb/Pole/etc.). It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling tool, but the context is clear and has no misleading exclusions.

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