setup_ik_chain

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

Annotations already signal a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description's 'Constraint IK' confirms modification but adds no extra context about what exactly changes (e.g., whether existing constraints are overwritten, or if the pose is altered). It does not disclose any side effects beyond the implicit constraint addition.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it reads more like a summary phrase than a structured explanation. It front-loads the core concept but omits vital details, making it minimally informative rather than efficiently complete.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no schema description coverage, and a destructive annotation), the one-line description is insufficient. It fails to explain the setup process, what the pole target does, or how the IK chain is applied to the bone. An output schema exists but the description should still convey high-level 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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only mentions chain_count and pole_target, leaving armature_name, bone_name, and target_object undocumented. These required parameters are not explicitly tied to the action, providing shallow semantics for a 5-parameter tool.

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 'Constraint IK pada pose bone dengan chain count dan pole target' clearly indicates the tool applies an IK constraint to a bone pose, mentioning key parameters (chain count and pole target). This distinguishes it from generic constraints like add_constraint and from posing tools like pose_bone, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'sets up'.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_constraint or auto_rig_weight. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., armature in pose mode) or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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