Match a two-bone FK pose to IK using a proposal-first workflow, with checkpointing and a duplicated Action for safe review.
Proposal-first explicit two-bone FK to IK pose match, checkpoint and duplicate Action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | analyze | |
| options | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| object_name | No | ||
| operation_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: the operation is proposal-first and creates a checkpoint plus a duplicate Action, which signals the safety net and the side effect on animation data.
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?
It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the key traits (proposal-first, two-bone, checkpoint, duplicate Action) are front-loaded. It is slightly jargon-heavy but efficient.
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 removes the need to describe returns, but for a non-read-only rig tool with five undocumented parameters the description leaves too much open: what a 'match' entails, how 'mode' affects analysis vs application, and what object it operates on.
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% and the description never mentions any of the 5 parameters (mode, options, operation, object_name, operation_id). There is no indication of what 'mode' selects or which object/operation the call targets.
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 names a specific verb+resource: matching a two-bone FK chain to an IK pose, with proposal-first behavior, a checkpoint, and an Action duplicate. That distinguishes it from the inverse rig_match_ik_to_fk and from the bake variants, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 guidance is given. 'Proposal-first' hints at a propose-then-apply workflow, but the description never says when to prefer this over rig_match_ik_to_fk, rig_bake_fk_to_ik, or rig_bake_ik_to_fk, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.