Move an IK target

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing state preconditions (controller must be enabled) and the pinned-vs-unpinned consequence ('an unpinned one bakes the pose'), which is real behavior an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint=false alone. Minor tension: 'bakes the pose' implies a persistent write while destructiveHint=false, though this is an unannotated nuance rather than a flat contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the state nuance. Every sentence carries information; only the pinned/unpinned sentence is slightly compressed for what it conveys.

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?

No output schema and six params at full schema coverage, so the description only needs to cover behavior. It covers the precondition and the pinning outcome but leaves the frame/canvas interaction and failure mode (no controller present) implicit.

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 x/y, uid, handleId, frame, and project are already documented. The description adds the useful framing that x/y position a hand or foot target in canvas space and that handleId must be a joint with a controller, but adds no detail on frame semantics or defaults beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource ('Move the inverse kinematics target of a joint') and clarifies the effect in concrete terms ('placing a hand or foot at a point on the canvas'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling pose_set_ik or from pose_set, so an agent must infer which pose tool to use.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite — the controller must already be enabled on that joint — and names the sibling that reveals it ('use figure_describe to see which joints have controllers'). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over pose_set_ik, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here.

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