set_semantic_pose

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

Annotations already flag a destructive mutation, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: single-transaction atomicity, retention of omitted slot targets, preservation of rig constraints, and a timeout-means-unknown-outcome caveat. The note that you read a solver-adjusted result signals the applied values may differ from those supplied, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent 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?

Three terse clauses front-load the action, then layer the transactional, constraint, and timeout caveats. Every clause carries information; density is high but earned with only minor jargon overhead.

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 nested-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: transaction scope, omit behavior, constraint preservation, and return/timeout semantics ('read solver-adjusted result'). It stops short on identifying the non-pose params, but the behavioral core is well covered.

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 4 params, so the description must carry the load. It explains the core model ('role/slot' names, omit semantics, and 'target frame values' relating to frame), but scene_id, character_id, and frame are never characterized, and no example role/slot names are given.

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 (patch) and resource (named role/slot world-position targets) with clear scope: a partial update in one native transaction. It reads as the 'semantic' pose setter, but it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings like set_pose, set_character_pose, or set_transform, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The omit-behavior sentence ('omitted slots retain the target frame values') is behavioral rather than routing, so an agent cannot tell from the description when to pick this over the many other pose-setting siblings.

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