set_retargeter_op_settings

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: idempotent partial-merge semantics, undo transaction wrapping, asset save, ClampMin/ClampMax enforcement after merge, payload echo of read-back settings, the exact no-op outcome (changed=false, saved=false, note), and failure behavior (success=false, saved=false, save_error). This is unusually thorough disclosure of side effects and edge cases.

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 primary action is front-loaded and the Returns block is separated cleanly. It is dense with parenthetical clauses in the opening sentence, but nearly every clause carries distinct information, so it is only mildly verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the full return shape plus error and no-op semantics. For a nested-object mutation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: settings keys map to get_retargeter_op_info names with a lower-cased first character (e.g. lODThreshold), numeric clamps are enforced, and enabled is applied via the controller. That is more than the schema conveys.

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 ('Partial-merge a retarget op's live settings struct') plus the optional enabled toggle, and names the companion tool whose keys it mirrors (get_retargeter_op_info). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_retargeter_op or remove_retargeter_op.

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 operational context: settings keys come from get_retargeter_op_info, only present fields are written, and it explains the no-op case (neither argument given, or values already equal) and the out-of-range op_index error. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' routing statement, so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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