design_advance_pose

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the advance wraps at the end of the sequence, what happens to the current pose's layers, whether it mutates state on the timer layer, or what the call returns. 'Move to the next pose' is the entire contract.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and prerequisite 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?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive-sounding sequencer step, the schema covers the input and there is no output schema to explain. Still, nothing is said about the session lifecycle it depends on or what happens at sequence end, which an agent needs before calling it.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as the timer layer ID for the session. The description adds nothing beyond that, but the schema already does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('move to the next pose') and its scope ('in a practice session'), so an agent can tell it apart from pose-mutation siblings such as design_set_figure_pose or design_randomize_pose. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus design_randomize_pose, design_set_figure_pose, or design_create_practice_session. The implicit prerequisite that a practice session must already exist (and that sessionLayerId comes from that tool) is never stated.

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