pose_apply

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-read-only, closed-world mutation, and the description adds real value beyond them: the write happens in 'one native modification' (atomicity), it reads back 'observed values and target errors' (built-in verification), and 'solvers may move other controls' warns that channels outside the requested set can be altered. That side-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express, though it stops short of stating permissions or rollback 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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat second. Efficient and non-redundant, though the dense jargon ('native modification', 'target errors') costs some immediate readability.

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 7-parameter destructive mutation with 29% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: parameter meaning, prerequisites, and what the report actually contains are all absent. It covers atomicity and solver side effects but not enough to call the tool safely without reading the schema closely.

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 only 29%: only position_tolerance and rotation_tolerance carry descriptions. The description does not explain 'poses' (object/position/rotation_wxyz semantics), 'frame', 'space' local vs global, 'verify', or 'create_keys', so the majority of parameters remain 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?

States a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('selected animated Transform channels') plus the outcome ('report observed values and target errors'). However, it never distinguishes this tool from the many close siblings (pose_apply_sequence, pose_offset, character_pose_apply, semantic_pose_apply, subtree_pose_apply), so an agent cannot tell which pose-writer to pick from the description alone.

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 only contextual hint is the caveat 'Solvers may move other controls,' which describes a side effect rather than routing guidance among the crowded pose_* tool family.

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