semantic_pose_offset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the edit runs as one checked transaction (implies validation and all-or-nothing behavior) and easing is not preserved (a concrete data-loss consequence). What it does not disclose is how conflicts or failures surface, or whether a snapshot/restore is needed first.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the atomicity/accumulation facts are front-loaded. The phrase 'from each existing frame's own targets' is somewhat opaque and would benefit from plainer wording, but 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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema mutation with a nested payload, the definition covers transaction atomicity and the easing side effect but leaves the offsets payload shape, character scoping, and post-call state entirely unexplained. An agent could not construct a valid offsets object from this description alone.

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% and one parameter is an untyped nested object ('offsets': {type: object}), so the description must carry the load. It only says 'semantic groups' and 'from each frame's own targets' without explaining the offsets structure, the meaning of the 'character' string, or what the integer frame indices refer to. The schema supplies only hard limits (maxItems 8, uniqueItems), not semantics.

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 selected semantic groups' with an offsetting (relative) semantic, which implicitly separates it from absolute-apply siblings like semantic_pose_apply and pose_offset. It never names an alternative, but an agent can infer the relative-vs-absolute split from the word 'offset' plus 'relative edits accumulate'.

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?

'from each existing frame's own targets' implies a prerequisite (frames must already be posed) and 'Relative edits accumulate' warns about repeated invocation. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against the many sibling offset/apply tools, so routing is left to inference.

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