key_paw_pose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'key' implying a keyframe operation, but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing keys, interpolation behavior, or whether it affects the entire rig or just the target. The two location modes are described, but broader behavioral context is missing.

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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It packs the core action and the two modes efficiently. It is not verbose, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

With five parameters (two required) and an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It lacks explanations for what a 'paw IK target' is, how to reference it via target_name, what 'frame' means, and the role of interpolation. The output schema covers return values, but the input semantics are under-explained.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It clarifies world_location vs world_delta by mentioning absolute location and delta, but frame, target_name, and interpolation are left unexplained. Given five parameters, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states the action (place and key) and the resource (paw IK target) with specifics about two modes (absolute or delta). It is distinct from siblings like key_pose_bone (which targets bones) and insert_keyframe (generic), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes how to specify location (absolute or delta) but does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing paw IK setup or when to prefer this over key_pose_bone. Sibling tools like create_limb_ik or key_pose_bone are not referenced.

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