character_pose_restore

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

The annotations declare a destructive, non-read-only mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: preconditions (identity/checksum validation before applying), explicit preservation semantics ('preserve existing curve metadata and untouched authored keys'), and post-condition verification ('verify all Joint poses'). It still omits failure behavior when checksum validation fails and whether the operation is atomic/rollback-safe, which matters for a destructive restore.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and sequences preconditions before effects and verification. It is dense and jargon-heavy (Point targets, finger-local rotations) but no clause is redundant.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, preservation guarantees, and verification well. It is nonetheless incomplete on the two undocumented parameters and on prerequisites (an existing snapshot/recording) that an agent needs in order to invoke it safely.

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% for both parameters, and the description makes no reference to either. 'path' is arguably self-evident as a target resource, but 'frame' (integer 0-100000) is completely unexplained — whether it selects the frame to restore to, or a sampling frame, is left ambiguous, which is a real risk for a destructive write.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') with concrete resources ('recorded Point targets', 'finger-local rotations', 'Joint poses'), so an agent can tell this writes a recorded character pose back onto a rig. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the numerous restore siblings (pose_restore, subtree_restore, checkpoint_restore, recovery_restore), leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite a crowded restore/snapshot family in the sibling list. The mention of 'recorded' and 'durable identity/checksum checks' hints that a prior snapshot must exist, but that prerequisite is never stated as a condition for calling this tool.

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