create_ik_retargeter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses prerequisites, the UE5 editor workflow equivalence, and the return dictionary structure. It does not explicitly warn about failure modes if prerequisites are unmet, nor does it describe side effects like asset creation location in detail, but the core behavioral context is transparent enough for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 structured with clear sections (core line, prerequisites, workflow, args, returns, KB reference, example). It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every section earns its place by providing actionable context. The front-loaded one-line purpose plus numbered workflow aids skimming.

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 creation tool with six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers all necessary context: what the asset does, prerequisite assets, the exact workflow position, parameter semantics with examples, the return shape, and a KB pointer. An agent can call it correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section explains all six parameters with names, purposes, and examples (e.g., 'retargeter_name: Asset name (e.g. "RTG_Mannequin_To_MyChar")', 'path: Destination content-browser folder'). This fully bridges the gap left by 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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a concrete resource ('an IK Retargeter asset'), and its function ('maps animations from a source skeleton to a target skeleton'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly referencing create_ik_rig (prerequisite) and batch_retarget_animations (follow-up), making its role in the pipeline unmistakable.

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 provides explicit prerequisites ('Requires that both source and target IK Rig assets already exist'), names the alternative tool to use first ('use create_ik_rig first'), and outlines a numbered typical workflow (1. create_ik_rig source, 2. create_ik_rig target, 3. create_ik_retargeter, 4. batch_retarget_animations). This leaves no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool relative to siblings.

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