pose_apply_sequence

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that: a prevalidation phase before mutation, the guarantee that keys are not created unless requested, that timeline extension is opt-in, and that readback surfaces solver adjustments. It does not say what existing animation data may be overwritten despite being flagged destructive.

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?

Three short sentences with the core operation and its scale front-loaded, followed by mutation caveats. No filler, though the final sentence about readback is slightly terse and could be folded into the behavioral statement more coherently.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the highest-risk semantics (validation, opt-in key creation, timeline extension) but omits atomicity/failure behavior, how 'increasing' frames are constrained, and the meaning of the space parameter. Adequate but not fully sufficient to call safely without inspecting the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents create_keys and extend_timeline through the second sentence and hints at verify through "Prevalidate", but leaves space (local vs global) and the two tolerance parameters unaddressed in the prose; the tolerances do carry their own schema descriptions, which softens the gap.

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 pair ("Prevalidate and apply") plus a concrete resource ("pose frames") and quantifies the scale (128 frames, 4096 object samples), which clearly distinguishes this from the single-pose sibling pose_apply. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring from the word "sequence".

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?

"Adds keys only when requested; timeline extension is explicit" implies the conditional usage of create_keys/extend_timeline, which is useful context for deciding whether this tool is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus pose_apply, semantic_pose_apply_sequence, or hand_pose_apply_sequence, all of which appear in the sibling list.

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