offset_semantic_pose_sequence

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

Annotations mark it destructive/non-readOnly, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: a single checked transaction with full-scene snapshot and rollback, creation of LINEAR intervals that discard authored easing, non-idempotent behavior, and the warning never to auto-retry after timeout. It also discloses return semantics (solved roles, not requested values) and explicit exclusions. This is exactly the extra behavioral load the annotations leave open.

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 most consequential facts (what it translates, and the mutation/transaction behavior) are front-loaded, and every sentence carries a distinct constraint or caveat. No filler.

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, nested, 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers transaction safety, easing loss, idempotency, return semantics, and exclusions. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and interpret the result.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does add real signal: offsets are world-space [dx,dy,dz] applied per named role, and frames must be 1-8 existing frames using their own current targets. It does not clarify scene_id/character_id formats or the full role vocabulary, which the schema only partially exposes through property names.

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?

It states a precise verb and resource: translate every Point slot of each named role by its world-space [dx,dy,dz] across 1-8 frames. The scope (world-space, point slots, frame-bounded) separates it from generic transform siblings and from set_pose_sequence. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 gives operational guidance (not idempotent, never auto-retry after timeout, read back first) and implicitly routes away from the sibling offset_semantic_pose_sequence_preserving_curves by stating it does not preserve authored easing. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative handoff is inferred rather than stated.

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