create_retarget_pose

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

Annotations only cover the generic write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds substantial value beyond them: the engine uniquifies the name so pose_name must be read back, the pose becomes the current pose as a side effect, and a failed save is surfaced via success=false plus saved=false and save_error.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences plus an explicit returns line; each sentence carries real information (save behavior, name mutation, current-pose side effect, follow-up tool). Only minor redundancy between the prose and the returns block keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape and the failure semantics, plus the follow-up workflow. For a non-idempotent creation tool with three fully documented params, nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by warning that the engine makes pose_name unique and that the caller must read the returned name back, which is genuine parameter-level behavior an agent needs and the schema does not convey.

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 specific verb+resource ('Create a new retarget pose') with clear scope ('for editing in an IK Retargeter through its controller, then save the asset'). An agent can easily distinguish it from siblings like get_retarget_poses, remove_retarget_pose, or create_ik_retargeter.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: the pose becomes the current pose and is 'ready for bone rotation edits via set_retarget_pose_bone_rotation', explicitly naming the follow-up tool. It lacks an explicit when-not or a comparison against adjacent creation tools (e.g. create_pose_asset), so it stops short of a 5.

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