Set a pose

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the whole call collapses into a single undo step, angles are absolute relative to the parent joint, and world placement respects inverse kinematics.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then addressing/units, then the IK alternative, then the undo guarantee. No padding or restatement of the title.

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?

Covers action scope, joint addressing, angle convention, IK behavior, and undo semantics for a 6-param nested-schema tool with no output schema. It leaves open whether a keyframe must already exist at the target frame and does not route to pose_set_ik when the caller wants IK-solved posing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that handleId comes from figure_describe, that angle parameters are absolute and measured from the parent joint, and that x/y trigger IK rather than a raw overwrite. It does not clarify the relationship between index and handleId when both are supplied.

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 ('Change a figure's pose in one keyframe') and enumerates the three things it does: root move, scale, joint angle/length/position. An agent can tell this apart from pose_evaluate, pose_reset, and the IK siblings without opening a schema.

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 clear operating context: joints are addressed by handle id (explicitly sourced 'from figure_describe') or by segment index, angles are absolute from the parent joint, and world x/y is the IK-respecting alternative. It stops short of naming pose_set_ik/pose_ik_set as the explicit alternative for IK-driven posing.

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