validate_retarget_profile

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'without changing Blender' which discloses non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what the validation actually checks (e.g., bone map validity, adapter constraints) or what the output looks like, though an output schema exists.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key constraint. No wasted words, and the key phrase 'without changing Blender' is front-loaded.

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 tool has an output schema (though not shown in the context) and a single complex parameter. The description is minimal but adequate for a validation tool with a clear non-destructive guarantee. It could benefit from noting what validation entails, but given the schema richness the description is reasonably complete.

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 tool has only one parameter, 'profile', which is fully defined in the input schema with a detailed retarget profile structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself provides rich semantics for the profile. The description adds minimal value beyond stating the validation scope, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate given the strong schema.

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 clearly states the tool validates a retarget profile (rename-only or sampled pose-bake) and explicitly notes it does not change Blender. This distinguishes it from other profile-related tools like analyze_retarget_profile and suggest_retarget_profile_map.

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 usage for validating a profile before applying, and the explicit 'without changing Blender' provides a key safety context. However, it does not specify when to use this over analyze_retarget_profile or other validation tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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