blender_pose

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

Annotations only mark the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that it mutates pose bone transforms and provides workflow context, but does not clarify whether omitted/null parameters preserve existing values or what happens at the current frame. The description does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences are front-loaded with the core function, and the second sentence adds relevant workflow context. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema information.

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 definition is reasonably complete for a pose setter: the action is clear, required parameters are visible in the schema, and response_format is self-documenting. However, with no output schema and no explicit behavior for omitted/null transform values, an agent has to infer what the call returns and whether unspecified attributes remain unchanged.

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 67%, and the schema already documents 'Local bone offset', 'Euler rotation in degrees', and response_format, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of location, rotation, and scale maps to parameters but adds no additional parameter semantics 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set a pose bone's location, rotation and scale'. This clearly distinguishes it from object-level transform tools and gives concrete workflow context ('posing before a physics bake', 'checking a rig's range of motion').

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?

It explicitly names when the tool is useful: before a physics bake or when checking a rig's range of motion. It does not list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the stated context is clear enough for an agent to route to this tool from the sibling set.

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