retarget_single_animation

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 the return dict structure, the overwrite flag behavior, and that it uses an existing retargeter. It does not mention failure modes, permissions, or whether the source asset is protected, but key observable behaviors are covered.

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: one-line purpose, usage context, parameter list, return type, KB link, and example. Every sentence contributes value, and the format is easy to scan. The example is slightly repetitive but not excessive.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description provides full parameter details, return structure, and an example. It could elaborate on error handling and exact asset-creation behavior, but it is adequate for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, but the Args section explains every parameter with additional context: full content paths, destination folder, default output_name (source name + '_Retargeted'), and overwrite semantics. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Retarget a single animation sequence using an existing IK Retargeter,' which gives a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly positions itself as a wrapper for single assets, differentiating it from the sibling batch_retarget_animations.

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?

It states 'Convenience wrapper around batch_retarget_animations for single assets' and 'Useful for quick tests before running the full batch,' naming the alternative and specifying when to use this tool. This is explicit guidance for choosing between single and batch retargeting.

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