rig_ik

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful side effects: a target bone is created at the chain tip unless `target` names one, the default bend follows the setup pose, and target parenting depends on whether juice bones exist. It omits idempotency (what happens on re-run), failure modes, and permission requirements.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core identity before the conditional behavior. Nearly every clause earns its place, with no padding.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage requires far more than this. Several tunable parameters are left entirely unexplained, and there is no guidance on project scoping or re-invocation.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it gives an example for `bones`, explains `target`, and implies `bend_positive` and `target_parent` behavior. `mix`, `stretch`, `softness`, and `project` are undocumented everywhere.

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 operation on a specific resource: '1- or 2-bone IK' with the bones chain as the operand and an example. It clearly establishes the rigging-domain purpose, though it never names a sibling it contrasts with (e.g. add_chain, rig_transform).

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 statement of when to choose IK over alternative rigging tools like add_chain or rig_transform, nor any prerequisites or constraints. Use is only implied by the tool name and the IK-domain content.

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