animation.retarget

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

Annotations are all false but provide no safety profile, and the description does not compensate. There is no mention of whether retargeting mutates the scene, what gets changed, whether it can be reverted, or how it interacts with transactions; 'Risk: standard' and 'maturity: L3' are generic metadata, not behavioral disclosure.

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 short, but brevity is not conciseness when none of the sentences earn their place. Every sentence is either a restatement of the title or generic boilerplate that would apply to any harness command; no useful information is front-loaded.

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?

With 10 parameters, required nested objects, and no explanation of the retargeting operation, the description is far from complete. An agent has no way to construct a valid call, understand the expected boneMap shape, or interpret the frame range semantics, making this inadequate despite the presence of an output schema.

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 only 40%, and the description adds zero parameter-level meaning. Crucial parameters like source, target, boneMap, frameStart, and frameEnd are left unexplained, and the description does not clarify what these objects/values mean in the context of retargeting.

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 only restates the tool's command name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `animation.retarget`') and adds generic risk/maturity labels. It never states what retargeting does, what assets it operates on, or what outcome it produces, so an agent cannot tell this apart from the many other animation tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_animation_fcurve_edit, blender_animation_pose_keyframe, or other animation tools. The only usage-related sentences are generic harness policy statements that apply to every command.

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