set_retarget_pose_bone_rotation

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true): it discloses that edits run as one undo transaction and auto-save, that bone_name is not validated against the skeleton, and the exact idempotent short-circuit (changed=false, saved=false, note set, nothing saved). It also defines the save-failure outcome (success=false, saved=false, save_error). This is rich, non-redundant behavioral detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and side effect, then the edge cases. Dense but every sentence carries semantic weight. Slightly heavy, and the trailing Returns block duplicates return-shape detail, but it is not padding.

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 mutation tool with annotations, this covers transactionality, save behavior, idempotency, validation gaps, and failure semantics, and even embeds the return shape despite no output schema. Minor gap: it references a 'success' field in the failure case that does not appear in the stated return object.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning: the euler/degrees input convention and quaternion read-back, plus the important semantic that bone_name is stored verbatim without skeleton validation. It does not clarify pose_name or source_or_target beyond the schema, keeping it just above baseline.

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+scope: setting a bone's rotation offset in the current retarget pose of an IK Retargeter asset. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_retargeter_chain_mapping or set_retargeter_op_settings, which operate on chains/ops rather than pose bone rotations.

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 operational context: it operates on the 'current' retarget pose, auto-creates a default pose if none is current, and requires bone_name to exist in the skeleton. However, it never names an alternative sibling or states when NOT to use this tool (e.g. for chain mapping vs bone rotation).

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