set_character_pose

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: discloses transaction atomicity ('ONE native transaction'), automatic full-scene snapshot and rollback verification on failure, retained constraints/IK mode, and the correct behavior after a timeout ('unknown outcome, read back before retry'). This is exactly the operational context a mutation tool needs.

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-loaded with the core action and transaction semantics, then constraints, then failure handling. Dense but each clause carries signal; slightly run-on phrasing costs a point.

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, no-output-schema, nested-object mutation tool, the description covers atomicity, rollback, prerequisites, and timeout recovery. The remaining gap is identifier semantics (scene_id/character_id) and the shape of the pose payload, which the schema only partially constrains.

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 carry the burden. It clarifies frame bounds (0-120) and that 'pose' is the complete native Point target set, but scene_id and character_id are never explained, and the joint-UUID-to-position mapping in the nested schema is left implicit.

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 precise verb and resource ('Write the complete native Point target set'), scopes it to a single native transaction at an existing frame, and distinguishes the native Point workflow from the semantic/transform siblings by naming the exact target type.

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 concrete preconditions — 'at an EXISTING frame (0-120)' and 'Exclusive C01 pose editing required' — plus failure-handling advice. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent between this and siblings like set_pose or set_semantic_pose, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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