pose

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: reset defaults to clearing all other bones, an empty pose reverts to rest, rotations are Euler XYZ local to each bone, and a Z-aligned bone bends forward about X. It stops short of covering failure modes such as invalid bone names or out-of-range values.

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?

Format specification is front-loaded and the sentences are dense but purposeful, with no filler. The inline JSON literals make it slightly harder to scan than plain prose, but nothing could be cut without losing real information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must stand alone, and it covers the posing format, reset semantics and rest behavior adequately. It omits how the target armature is identified and what happens on invalid bone names, which matters for a destructive mutation tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does that well for 'pose' (both the [rx,ry,rz] shorthand and the rot/loc/scale object form, in degrees, bone-local) and for the effect of 'reset', but the required 'armature' parameter is never explained at all.

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 ('Pose bones by numbers') and immediately defines the exact numeric input format, so an agent knows this is direct channel-level posing rather than armature creation (create_armature/limb) or weight binding (bind). The scope is unambiguous and does not overlap with the other rigging siblings.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over pose_sheet, limb, move_to_contact, or run_python. Statements like 'reset=true clears all other bones first' and 'An empty pose returns to rest' are behavioral facts, not routing guidance, so the agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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