rig_ik_solver

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, and the description adds the useful side effect that an IK goal is created and auto-bound. However, it does not disclose whether adding the solver overwrites an existing IK setup or what else changes on the bone chain, which would be valuable for a destructive rigging operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and includes only the essential behavioral note about auto-creating the goal. The bilingual repetition is purposeful localization, not unnecessary bloat.

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?

Combined with the 100% schema coverage and the destructive/read-only annotations, the description gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly: what it adds, which solver types are available, and that a goal is auto-created. It could add a warning about replacing existing IK, but the core invocation context is present.

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%, and both parameters are already well documented: 'type' lists the solver enum values and 'objects' explains bone-chain order and the current-selection fallback. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('add') and resource ('bone chain'), names the three supported solver types (HI Solver / HD Solver / Spline IK), and notes that it creates and auto-binds the IK goal. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rig_ik_enable, rig_ik_disable, and rig_ik_goal.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as rig_set_ik_chain, rig_spline_ik, or rig_ik_enable. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' routing.

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