reset_pose

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds that it resets to rest position but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether it affects all bones when bone_name is empty, whether it clears keyframes, or if it can be undone. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 communicates the core function without fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly clearer with proper grammar, but it earns a high score for efficiency and lack of unnecessary text.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify the scope of the reset (one bone vs. all bones), whether it resets only the pose or also affects rest pose, or any side effects. While annotations and schema provide some context, the description leaves critical gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention either parameter. The schema provides names (armature_name, bone_name) but no additional explanation. The optional bone_name is particularly ambiguous—does leaving it empty reset all bones? The description fails to clarify this, providing no added meaning beyond the 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 resets a bone's transform pose to its rest position. It identifies the verb ('reset') and the resource ('bone pose'), distinguishing it from other bone-related tools like pose_bone. However, it's slightly ambiguous whether it resets a specific bone or all bones, as the bone_name parameter is optional.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pose_bone for setting poses or mirror_bones. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or conditions under which resetting the pose is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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