hand_pose_apply_sequence

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not required to establish that this is a mutating call. It nonetheless adds real value beyond the annotations: 'one checked transaction' discloses atomicity/validation, and 'preserving body Points, Joint poses and unrelated tracks' tells the agent exactly what is spared, which is the key question for a destructive write. What a 'checked' transaction actually checks, and what happens on failure, remains unstated.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope before the preservation guarantees. The packing is efficient, though 'validated' and 'checked transaction' are used without elaboration, which slightly costs clarity against the brevity gained.

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 two-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers the two most important things: atomicity and what is preserved. It is still incomplete on prerequisites (where validated patches come from), the role of 'character', and how failures inside the transaction are reported.

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%, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It usefully explains that the required keyframes array holds '1-8 validated finger-local quaternion patches', matching the minItems/maxItems bounds and giving the otherwise-undocumented item type. The optional 'character' parameter is not mentioned at all, so the agent gets no guidance on its purpose or default behavior.

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 (Apply) and a specific resource (finger-local quaternion patches) with a bounded count (1-8), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like pose_apply_sequence and semantic_pose_apply_sequence by scoping to fingers only. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation must be inferred from the 'finger-local' qualifier.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for writing hand/finger posing data, and 'validated' hints at a prerequisite validation step. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention that hand_pose_read is the natural source of the patches, and no statement about when to prefer pose_apply_sequence or semantic_pose_apply_sequence instead.

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