rig_ik_enable

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not explain what changes on the bones, whether existing animation or constraints are affected, or any irreversible consequences, despite the destructive hint.

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 and front-loaded, with the core action stated immediately. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but acceptable for a localized tool; no filler or irrelevant detail appears.

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 one-parameter tool with strong schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequately usable. However, it lacks information about return values, side effects, or workflow context, and the destructive annotation is not elaborated on, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 fully documents the only parameter, including the default behavior when omitted ('omit for the current selection'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description is not required to repeat parameter details, and it does not need to add more here.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Enable IK on the bones of a chain', and explains the purpose ('so they can be driven by the IK solver'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rig_ik_disable and rig_ik_solver, even without explicitly naming alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related rigging tools, such as rig_ik_solver, rig_set_ik_chain, or rig_ik_goal. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended workflow context beyond the general purpose.

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