rig_set_ik_chain

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

Annotations already mark it as a write/destructive operation; the description adds no further behavioral context such as whether changes are immediate, reversible, or require a particular IK setup. It doesn't contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't disclose what side effects tuning these angles may have on the chain.

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, bilingual, and front-loaded: it states the operation and the two parameters in both languages without filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 setter with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the parameters, their units, and the selection fallback. However, it omits any relationship to sibling IK tools (e.g., needing an enabled IK solver) and does not explain practical consequences, so an agent has to infer prerequisites.

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 covers 100% of parameters, including names and units, so the description adds little beyond restating the same parameter info in natural language. Per baseline, 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter semantics are introduced.

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?

States a clear action ('Tune'/'调整') with a specific resource ('bone chain's IK parameters') and names the two affected parameters. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with IK-related siblings like rig_ik_enable or rig_ik_solver, but the resource+parameter specificity is enough to identify what it does.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus related rig IK tools such as rig_ik_enable, rig_ik_solver, or rig_ik_goal, nor any prerequisites like an existing IK solver. The only usage hint is that omitting 'objects' uses the current selection, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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