character_pose_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish that this mutates. It does add value by naming the payload (native Point/finger pose plus Joint verification), but it says 'new workspace JSON' while the annotations flag destruction — an agent gets no guidance on what happens if the path already exists. That is the key undisclosed behavior.

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?

One dense sentence with the core action and payload front-loaded and no filler. It is packed but readable, and nothing 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?

There is no output schema and a destructive write, so the description should explain overwrite semantics, what the verification data looks like, and what the optional frame/character parameters do. It covers none of these, leaving an agent unable to call the tool safely beyond supplying a path.

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 three parameters: path, frame, and character. The description mentions no parameter at all, so an agent must infer that path is the destination JSON and has no idea whether frame scopes the capture to a timeline frame or how character selects the rig. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — saving a complete native Point/finger pose plus read-only Joint verification into a workspace JSON — so an agent knows exactly what artifact gets produced. It does not distinguish this from siblings like pose_snapshot, character_pose, or character_pose_restore, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'for restoration across sessions' implies the intended use (persisting state to reload later), which is context, but the description never states when to choose this over pose_snapshot or character_pose_apply, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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