production.rig_bake_fk_to_ik

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-idempotent mutation with no destructive or open-world flags, and the description usefully adds that it performs 'sampled error verification' after baking. However, it omits what data is overwritten (existing IK keys/action curves, target/pole constraints), whether the operation is reversible, and what the default 'analyze' mode implies for a tool annotated as a write.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and the verification behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the compression leaves too much unsaid for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutating rig tool with 0% param coverage the description should at minimum explain the analyze-vs-apply mode split and the object/operation scoping. Those gaps make it too thin to invoke safely on the first try.

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?

All five parameters (mode, options, operation, object_name, operation_id) have 0% schema description coverage and the description names none of them. Nothing explains that 'mode' defaults to analyze, what 'options' accepts, or how object_name/operation_id scope the bake — the description does no compensating work at all.

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 (bake) and resource (explicit FK limb motion to IK target/pole), which is concrete enough that an agent can tell it apart from rig_match_fk_to_ik. It stops short of naming the inverse sibling rig_bake_ik_to_fk, so the direction must be inferred from the tool name rather than the description.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over rig_match_fk_to_ik (match without baking) or rig_bake_ik_to_fk (opposite direction). The implied workflow — that an FK-to-IK match must already exist before baking — is never stated.

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