set_retargeter_chain_mapping

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

Goes well beyond annotations: single undo transaction, then asset save; source_chain not validated so misspellings are stored as-is; set_ok false when no op lists target_chain; changed/saved false on no-op; a failed save yields success=false with save_error and a note. This is exactly the destructive/idempotent behavior detail annotations 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-loaded with the core action and then dense edge-case semantics, every sentence carrying information. It is fairly long and somewhat run-on, but no sentence is filler given the mutation's complexity.

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?

Covers the mutation semantics, undo/save behavior, validation gap, success/failure flags, and enumerates the return object. For a destructive mutation with no output schema and only annotations for safety, this is complete enough to call 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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: source_chain is not validated, op_name selects a single op vs. all ops, and mapped_source is read back from the first matching op. That enriches parameter interpretation.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Make source_chain drive target_chain in an IK Retargeter asset, overwriting the previous mapping.' It clearly distinguishes itself from read siblings by naming get_ik_retargeter_info for inspecting the same data.

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?

Explains the scope condition for applying the change (every op listing target_chain, or only the op named op_name) and points to get_ik_retargeter_info to see the per-op mappings. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling mutators like rename_ik_retarget_chain or add_ik_retarget_chain, but the operational context is clear.

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