rig_ik_disable

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that IK is disabled and the chain returns to FK posing, but it does not state what is destroyed or modified internally, such as IK solvers or animation key impact.

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 extremely compact and front-loads the action. The bilingual format duplicates meaning but remains short and purposeful, with no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 simple mutator with one optional parameter, destructive annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly routing the agent to rig_ik_enable or other IK-related alternatives.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'objects' as an optional bone-name list that defaults to the current selection. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Disable') on a specific resource ('IK on the bones of a chain') and names the resulting state ('back to manual FK posing'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling rig_ik_enable and other rig 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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you want to disable IK and return to manual FK posing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives like rig_ik_enable or rig_ik_solver.

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