blender_pose_library_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait—blend_factor semantics with explicit 0=keep current, 1=full saved pose—which is genuinely useful. However, it omits side effects (the armature's current pose is mutated), error behavior for nonexistent poses/armatures, and whether keyframes are auto-created or only poses applied. The blend explanation earns credit, but the mutation profile and failure modes are left undisclosed.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the blend behavior follows in the second, and the workflow use case closes it out. Every clause earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details beyond the useful blend semantics.

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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and one use case adequately. However, with no annotations to convey the mutation/safety profile, the description could have noted prerequisites (pose must already exist in the pose library, armature must be valid) and clarified the result of applying a pose. These gaps leave the agent to infer failure conditions.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's blend_factor explanation (0=keep current, 1=full saved pose) essentially duplicates what the schema already states, adding no new parameter meaning. pose_name and armature_name receive no additional elaboration in the description beyond their schema entries.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Apply a previously saved pose to an armature." The phrase "previously saved" cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling blender_pose_library_save, and the pose/armature context separates it from other 'apply' tools (modifier_apply, geonode_apply). However, it never explicitly names an alternative, relying on inference rather than direct sibling differentiation.

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?

The closing sentence, "Useful for creating animation keyframes from preset poses," gives the agent a concrete workflow context for when this tool is appropriate. It implies this is the apply-side of a save/apply pose pair, but it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives such as blender_pose_library_save or blender_keyframe_insert.

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