sim_set_pose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the blending semantics of amount (1 = as authored, 0.5 = halfway) and the default reference frame (lower limits vs current targets). It omits whether the command is immediate, requires stepping, or affects persisted state.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the parameter semantics and follow-up workflow. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the two non-obvious parameters and the verification workflow, leaving only minor gaps around the name argument and state-mutation effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines amount's scale and from_current's two modes, but leaves the required name parameter's source (presumably sim_list_poses) unexplained.

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?

"Command a named pose" states a specific verb and resource, and the blending sentences clarify the effect. It is distinguishable from sibling list/mutation tools like sim_list_poses and sim_set_targets, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 gives a clear operational workflow ("Follow with sim_step, then sim_screenshot to verify"), which tells the agent how to sequence this call. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use this tool versus sim_set_targets.

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