set_bone_transform

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the outcome contract: a 'not_found' flag for missing bones, an 'updated' flag, and a 'saved' flag indicating the asset is persisted. That tells the agent how to interpret failure and persistence, which annotations don't convey.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action, followed by a compact return-field list. No filler, no restatement of the tool name. The Returns block is slightly awkwardly formatted but earns its place by conveying outcome flags absent from an output schema.

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 3-parameter mutation with a nested transform object and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and compensates with the return shape. What it leaves unresolved is workflow context: whether the change must later be committed via commit_bone_changes or is written immediately, and what the 'destructive' overwrite of an existing pose implies for the skeleton.

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%: each of the three parameters (skeleton_path, bone_name, local_transform) is documented, including the nested transform structure and the requirement that all three components be supplied. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Update the local reference-pose transform of an existing bone.' The qualifier 'local reference-pose' distinguishes it from siblings such as set_bone_parent, rename_bone, or the retrieval-oriented get_bone_transform. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. In particular, it never clarifies the relationship to sibling tools like commit_bone_changes or get_bone_transform, nor whether this must be paired with a save/commit step. The word 'existing' hints a bone must already be present, but that is the only usage signal.

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