design_set_figure_pose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation on an existing layer, but does not explain whether keypoint updates are partial or replacing, what happens to omitted joints, error behavior, or permission requirements.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and subject.

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?

This is a six-parameter mutation tool with nested keypoint data and no annotations or output schema. The description states the basic target but omits sufficient context about update semantics, validation, and expected effects for an agent to fully understand the call.

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%, so parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description groups the operation into joint positions and tilt/twist, which is helpful but adds no details beyond the structured 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 uses a specific verb and resource: update joint positions and tilt/twist on an existing mannequin layer. It clearly describes the operation and target, but does not distinguish this tool from sibling pose tools such as design_set_pose_keypoints or design_advance_pose.

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 only usage constraint is that the mannequin layer must already exist. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_set_pose_keypoints, design_advance_pose, design_randomize_pose, or design_clear_pose_layers.

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