armature_set_pose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses rotation units (degrees) and provides an example, but does not indicate whether poses are added or overwritten, if armature must be in pose mode, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is concise, using one sentence and a brief args section. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, the args section uses a docstring format that could be slightly streamlined, but overall no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameter format, but lacks return value description, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., armature must exist). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: it documents the structure of bone_poses as a list of dicts with 'bone', 'rotation', 'location', and includes an example. It compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool sets bone poses (rotation/location) on an armature, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes well from siblings like armature_add_bone or armature_list_bones.

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 description implies usage for posing bones, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use armature_add_bone vs this). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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