production.rig_bake_ik_to_fk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotency=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes real behavioral context by promising solver/driver structure is preserved, which tells the agent what is NOT destroyed. However, it says nothing about what is changed on the target rig, whether the operation is reversible, or what the analyze vs apply distinction means.

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 tight sentence with the transformation front-loaded and the non-destructive constraint following it; nothing is wasted. The brevity is well-structured but borders on under-specification given five undocumented parameters.

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 non-idempotent rig-mutating tool with five unnamed-semantics parameters, the description leaves out what mode=analyze does, what prerequisites (IK chains mapped, semantics matched) must hold, and whether output is written to an action. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the operational gaps remain large.

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% — all five parameters carry only bare titles ('Mode', 'Options', 'Operation', 'Object Name', 'Operation Id') with no enum or format hints. The description adds no parameter meaning at all: it does not explain the analyze/apply mode values, what 'operation' or 'operation_id' are for, or how to identify the target object.

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 transformation: bake explicit IK limb motion into FK keys. The clause 'without removing solver/driver structure' adds a distinguishing scope note. It does not name the obvious sibling rig_bake_fk_to_ik (the reverse direction), though the 'IK into FK' phrasing implicitly separates them.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance is given. Critically, the schema default for 'mode' is 'analyze', implying a dry-run-first workflow, but the description never says whether this tool analyzes or writes by default, nor how to choose between it and rig_bake_fk_to_ik or rig_match_ik_to_fk.

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