rig_spline_ik

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the chain distributes along the curve, but it does not disclose whether existing IK is replaced, how the binding affects the chain, or what side effects occur beyond the generic 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 compact and front-loaded with the main action and purpose. The bilingual repetition is minor overhead but is justified for accessibility.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, common use cases, and the role of the spline and bone chain. Combined with the schema, an agent has enough to call the tool, though return values and detailed workflow prerequisites are not explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds domain context but no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: adding a Spline IK solver to a bone chain and binding a spline. The tail/tentacle/rope examples and the mention of Spline IK differentiate it from sibling rig tools like rig_ik_solver or rig_set_ik_chain.

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?

It gives clear typical use cases (tails, tentacles, ropes), which imply when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the many sibling IK/rig tools or state when a different solver should be chosen.

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