pose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the rotation convention (Euler XYZ, local to bone), the reset-clobbers-other-bones behavior, and the empty-pose-returns-to-rest semantics. Remaining gaps include error behavior for unknown bones and whether unspecified bones are preserved.

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?

The format definition and behavioral constraints are front-loaded and every sentence adds information with no filler. Sentence fragments are terse and slightly jargon-heavy but functional.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main input semantics and reset behavior well, but omits return values, the meaning of the armature argument, and failure modes for invalid bone names.

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 compensate, and it thoroughly documents the pose parameter with two concrete input shapes, units (degrees), and Euler convention. The armature parameter is left unexplained, but the complex parameter gets real semantic depth.

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 concrete verb (pose) and resource (bones) and immediately defines the numeric input format, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like pose_sheet or bind, which an agent must infer from context.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives; the agent is not told how this differs from pose_sheet, list_bones, or bind. Usage is only implied by the format explanation.

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