add_ik_rig_retarget_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the operation (adds a chain) and returns a dict with success/chain_name/message, and notes a prerequisite (call after create_ik_rig). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing chains), required permissions, or error behavior beyond the message field. This is a moderate gap given the absence of annotations.

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 description is well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, args, returns, KB reference, and example. It is longer than minimal but every part serves a purpose—no redundancy. The use of headers and examples aids readability, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming the retarget chain explanation.

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?

The description covers the main operational aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameter meanings, return format, a knowledge base reference, and a full example. It lacks explicit error-handling details or behavior on duplicate chains, but given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations for every parameter with concrete examples (e.g., ik_rig_name="IKR_MyCharacter", start_bone="spine_01"). It also clarifies the optional ik_goal_name. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool adds a named retarget chain to an existing IK Rig asset. It explains what retarget chains do (map bone ranges for motion transfer) and distinguishes it from siblings like create_ik_rig and set_ik_rig_retarget_root by specifying its exact role. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to call it: after create_ik_rig when auto_generate_chains=False, or to add extra chains the auto-generator missed. This provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for related tasks, though the conditions imply the appropriate scenario.

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