offset_semantic_pose_sequence_preserving_curves

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

Goes well past the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing what is preserved (key layout, track membership, interpolation, easing weights, tangent metadata), what is written (only selected Point channels), what is validated (all-frame geometry, unedited FIXED/baked tracks), the non-idempotency, and the need to read back after timeout. This is a rich and accurate behavioral contract.

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?

Front-loads the core action and constraint set into a single dense paragraph with essentially no filler; each clause carries a distinct rule or side effect. The density is justified by the tool's complexity, though the run-on structure slightly reduces scanability.

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 complex, non-idempotent, no-output-schema mutation with several rejection paths, the description covers preservation guarantees, side effects on coupled rig Points/Joints, validation scope, and read-back guidance. Only the parameter-level details (offset units/space) remain unaddressed.

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 parameters are undocumented structurally; the description partly compensates by mapping 'role groups' to the offsets keys and '1-8 existing keys' to the frames array bounds, and by noting no key creation. It still leaves coordinate space, units, and the scene_id/character_id roles unexplained, so it only partially closes the gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Offset) and resource (named Point role groups at 1-8 existing keys on their tracks), plus the transaction scope ('one checked transaction'), which cleanly separates it from sibling offset_semantic_pose_sequence and 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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions: rejects editing FIXED tracks, custom tangents, additive stacks, cycles, or unavailable state, and excludes rotation, finger curling, and timeline extension. It does not name an alternative sibling for those excluded cases, which is the only gap.

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