production.rig_match_ik_to_fk

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only and not destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context that the mutation targets a duplicate and that world-space pose is verified, but says nothing about what state the duplicate ends up in, whether the change is reversible, or what mode='analyze' versus other modes actually do.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core operation stated first and the verification step second; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a five-parameter mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 means return values need not be explained, but for a non-read-only, non-idempotent rig operation with five undocumented parameters and no sibling differentiation, the description is far too thin. It omits mode semantics, which object the duplicate comes from, and any prerequisite or failure behavior.

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% across five optional parameters (mode, options, operation, object_name, operation_id), and the description supplies no parameter semantics at all. The default mode='analyze' is potentially critical to behavior and is entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource: matching an evaluated IK pose onto FK channels, plus a world-space pose verification step. The object is clear, but the description never distinguishes 'match' from the closely-named siblings rig_match_fk_to_ik, rig_bake_ik_to_fk, and rig_bake_fk_to_ik, so an agent must guess at the match-vs-bake boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The phrase 'on a duplicate' implies a precondition (operate on a copy) but does not state that as a rule or say how this differs from the inverse rig_match_fk_to_ik.

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