Update keypoints on an existing pose skeleton layer by supplying a layer ID and new joint coordinates, enabling precise pose adjustments in generative art workspaces.
Update keypoints on an existing pose skeleton layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layerId | Yes | Skeleton layer ID. | |
| keypoints | Yes | New keypoints as { jointName: { x, y } }. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does 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 states that keypoints are updated, but does not disclose whether the operation replaces all keypoints or merges a subset, what happens to omitted joints, whether it requires a specific layer type, or whether the change is reversible.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity reflects missing guidance rather than deliberate precision.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description is only one sentence. It identifies the operation and target layer but leaves important invocation details unclear, including keypoint replacement semantics, coordinate assumptions, and whether the layer must be selected or otherwise prepared.
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 schema already documents layerId as a skeleton layer ID and keypoints as a jointName-to-{x,y} mapping. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Update keypoints on an existing pose skeleton layer." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby pose-related siblings such as design_add_pose_skeleton, design_set_figure_pose, or design_randomize_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 signal is the phrase "existing pose skeleton layer," which implies the layer must already exist. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like design_add_pose_skeleton or design_set_figure_pose, nor any stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.