Set a single joint's local position and rotation at a specific frame in a Cascadeur scene, with a recovery snapshot and linear FK interpolation for bounded pose edits.
Set one joint in local space using the bounded batch engine. Captures recovery snapshot first and interpolates linear FK tracks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | ||
| frame | Yes | ||
| scene | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| position | No | ||
| rotation_wxyz | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it captures a recovery snapshot first (implying recoverability) and interpolates linear FK tracks, which explains side effects an agent could not infer from the schema.
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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense jargon ('bounded batch engine', 'linear FK tracks') but it carries real 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?
For a destructive 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description leaves key gaps: which parameters are mandatory, what 'frame' means, and what the tool returns. It covers behavior reasonably but not the invocation surface.
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% across 6 parameters (scene, root, object, frame, position, rotation_wxyz), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — it never explains units, frame semantics, or what position/rotation arrays represent. No compensation for the coverage 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 and resource ('Set one joint in local space') and differentiates from global-space siblings like set_global_transform and set_transform. Slightly muddled by the schema's object/position/rotation arrays, which suggest an object transform rather than a single joint, but the local-space scoping is clear.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. 'Local space' implicitly distinguishes it from global-space tools, but the agent must infer that this is the variant to pick for local-space edits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.