rigify_configure_ik

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sets up IK pole targets, chain lengths, and floor constraints, and lists tracking modes. However, it omits behavioral traits like whether it modifies the rig in-place, requires the rig to be selected, or resets existing IK settings. This leaves behavioral gaps.

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 relatively concise: two sentences plus a parameter list. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the parameter list is front-loaded. There is minor redundancy between 'Sets up IK pole targets, chain lengths, and optional floor constraints' and the parameter list, but overall it is well-structured and 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema exists (but not provided). The description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., a Rigify-generated rig must exist), error conditions, or post-conditions. Given the tool's complexity, this leaves some contextual gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains rig_name (default), tracking_mode (with options listed), and floor_constraint (boolean, default True). It adds meaning beyond the schema by describing what each parameter does, though it could be more specific about the effect of floor_constraint (e.g., prevents floor penetration).

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 clearly states the verb 'configure' and the resource 'IK settings on a Rigify rig' with VRChat full-body tracking context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rigify_generate_rig, which creates the rig, and rigify_to_vrc, which handles export. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage after rig generation (configure IK on a generated rig), providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or specify when not to use it, such as when the rig is not yet generated or when using different tracking systems.

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