game_skeleton_ik

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It lists the actions but does not disclose whether starting IK overrides existing bone poses, whether stopping resets the skeleton to its authored pose, or whether set_target requires IK to be running first. For a stateful control operation, these side effects are material and undocumented.

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 compact eleven-word fragment with zero filler, and the action list is front-loaded. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than genuinely polished.

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?

For a 3-parameter control tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic operation set but omits the action-to-target dependency, any state prerequisites, and what a call returns. It is adequate as a headline but incomplete as an invocation spec.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents nodePath, action, and target. The description reinforces the action values but adds no new meaning, and critically, neither the description nor the schema clarifies the conditional dependency that target only applies when action='set_target'.

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 names a specific resource (SkeletonIK3D) and the three operations performed (start, stop, set target position), so an agent can determine what the tool does at a glance. It is clear but does not differentiate itself from the related sibling game_bone_pose, which also manipulates skeleton state.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With roughly 90 siblings including game_bone_pose, game_call_method, and game_set_property, an agent receives no hint about when IK control is the right choice, what prerequisites exist, or which tool to prefer in other situations.

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