rig_pose_and_animate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the tool mutates Motor6D C0 transforms and makes safety guarantees ('without breaking rig hierarchy or throwing read-only Motor6D errors'). It could additionally mention reversibility or return behavior, but the disclosed mutation and error behavior is substantial.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then quickly adds use cases and safety guarantees. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it identifies the target rig types, the mutation mechanism, and the no-error guarantee, while the schema covers required inputs. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens after the pose is applied or whether previous poses are overwritten, but those are not blocking gaps for this complexity level.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for the parameters, including joint name mapping, rig type, and degree arrays, so schema coverage is high. The description adds useful context by tying the parameters to Motor6D C0 and rig joint behavior, but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb ('transforms'), a specific resource ('R15/R6 rig joints (Motor6D C0)'), and concrete use cases ('static poses, weapon hold stances, or dialogue stances'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from generic scripting or property-editing siblings.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: posing and animating rigs without breaking hierarchy. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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