key_pose_bone

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does state that only supplied channels are changed, which is a positive nuance. However, it does not mention whether existing keyframes are overwritten, how interpolation is applied, or any side effects on the rig. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap; it says what it does but not the full implications.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value: the action, the target resource, the transform channels, and a key behavioral caveat. There is no filler or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 7 parameters and 3 required, this description is thin. It does not mention the interpolation setting, which is a notable omission. It also does not explain the coordinate system or how the arrays are structured for location, rotation, and scale. While an output schema exists and likely covers return values, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently make correct calls without inspecting 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions location, rotation (WXYZ quaternion), and scale, but it does not explain the format of these arrays (e.g., quaternion order, units, local vs world). It also omits any explanation of the interpolation parameter, which is not covered by the schema. The description provides only surface-level mapping of parameters, failing to give the necessary details for correct invocation.

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 (key), the resource (a generated rig's pose bone), and the specific data involved (local-space location, WXYZ quaternion, scale). It also notes 'Only supplied channels are changed,' which clarifies its scope and distinguishes it from a generic keyframe tool. The mention of 'generated rig' differentiates it from sibling tools like insert_keyframe or key_paw_pose.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use for generated rigs only' or 'when you need to key a bone's transform.' The only hint is the phrase 'only supplied channels are changed,' which is a behavioral note, not a usage context. No alternatives are mentioned, so an agent is left to infer the tool's role.

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