character_offset_preserving_curves

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: curve metadata and protected authored data are preserved, and offsets accumulate so the operation is not idempotent, which explains the retry caution. It still omits what precisely gets destroyed and what an 'inspect' step would be.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the accumulation hazard. Dense jargon ('semantic Point groups,' 'protected authored data') costs some clarity but no sentence is wasted.

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, seven-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers the behavior and the retry hazard adequately. It falls short on parameter disambiguation (delta vs offsets, profile, position_tolerance) and on what a successful call returns or changes.

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% across seven parameters, including ambiguous pairs like delta versus offsets and opaque fields like profile and position_tolerance. The description only loosely maps 'Point groups' to objects, 'Points' to offsets/delta, and 'existing keys' to frames, leaving the rest undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

The description names a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Translate semantic Point groups or explicit character Points at existing keys.' Combined with 'preserving curve metadata,' an agent can tell this is an offset operation that is curve-safe. It never names the closely related siblings (pose_offset, semantic_pose_offset, rig_pose_offset, character_pose_preserving_curves), so differentiation still requires guesswork.

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?

'Inspect before retrying an unknown outcome' hints at a usage pattern but only for the failure case. There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus the many sibling offset tools, or on prerequisites such as whether keys must already exist or what happens when a frame has no key.

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