extract_pose_constraint

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: it preserves world position, returns a constraint to add to GenerateRequest.constraints, and warns that pose anchoring does not guarantee terminal-joint twists, velocity continuity, or seamless looping. This is solid behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, though not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by return behavior and a focused caveat. There is no repetition or wasted text.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return structure and safety, but with five parameters and 0% schema description coverage the definition omits the parameter meanings needed to call it correctly. The validation caveat helps, but it is not enough for a parameterized extraction tool.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters, leaving job_id, sample_index, source_frame, target_frame, and constraint_type unexplained. The vague references to an actual SOMA pose and world position do not compensate for that gap.

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 action, reusing an actual SOMA pose as a constraint for a new generation while preserving world position, and says it returns a constraint for GenerateRequest.constraints. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling extract_motion_constraints, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Implies it should be used when anchoring a new generation to an existing pose, and adds a useful validation caveat. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus extract_motion_constraints or other constraint-related siblings.

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