rig_pose_offset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — offsets are relative and accumulate across calls (non-idempotent), and edits are confined to existing frames — but it never says what is destroyed or overwritten (existing key values) or how profile/space affect the result.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the accumulation warning is placed where it will be read. It is efficient, though the terseness pushes the burden onto inference rather than over-explaining.

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, six-parameter mutation with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the required profile parameter, the local/global space choice, and the create_keys switch, and gives no indication of what is returned or what happens on partial failure.

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 burden; it maps loosely to roles ('named control groups'), frames, and delta ('translate', 'relative'). It says nothing about the required 'profile' parameter, the 'space' enum (local vs global), or 'create_keys', leaving three of six parameters — including one required — semantically unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Translate complete named control groups across existing frames', which tells an agent it offsets (not sets) rig control groups on pre-existing keyframes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-name siblings such as pose_offset, semantic_pose_offset, or character_offset_preserving_curves, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Across existing frames' implies the tool only touches already-keyed frames rather than authoring new ones, and 'Relative edits accumulate' implies repeated calls stack. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to the alternative offset tools 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.