Reset a pose

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful effect detail — what is dropped (angles, lengths, bends) versus what survives (position, size, colour) — going beyond the annotation set, though it says nothing about scope across frames or reversibility via history_undo.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action first, then the preservation guarantee. No filler and nothing front-loaded incorrectly.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the semantic effect an agent most needs to know. The only gap is how the frame/frames parameters scope the reset, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 100% and each parameter (uid, frame, frames, project) is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about frame vs frames or the default playhead behavior, but is not required to.

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 and resource ('Return a figure to the rest pose of its definition') and enumerates exactly which attributes are discarded (angles, lengths, bends), which distinguishes it cleanly from pose_set or pose_evaluate without needing the siblings named.

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 the use case (undo a posed state back to the definition's rest pose) but never explicitly contrasts it with pose_set or says when a reset is preferable to setting individual angles. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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