rig_ik_goal

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description goes beyond that by explaining that keying the move drives the whole chain and that omitting frame means no key is recorded. It does not warn about overwriting existing keys, but the destructive hint covers the mutation hazard.

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 two compact bilingual sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence carries useful information about what the tool does and the optional keying behavior.

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 3-parameter mutation tool, the description combined with full schema coverage is largely sufficient. It explains the main effect and keying behavior; minor gaps such as coordinate space or overwrite semantics are not critical given the annotations and 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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds only a slight restatement of position and frame semantics, without extra information such as coordinate space, units, or interaction between objects and current selection.

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 states the specific action 'Move the IK goal to a position' and defines the resource, with the optional keyframe behavior clearly noted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rig_ik_enable or rig_set_ik_chain, which concern IK setup rather than goal manipulation.

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 implies use for repositioning an IK goal and mentions optional keying, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over generic transform tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites are given, so usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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