reset_pose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates that this is a mutating operation that resets the Armature, and it limits scope to 'all'. However, it does not mention undo behavior, preconditions, or side effects, which would be useful for a mutating tool.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the critical constraint on the parameter follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a very simple tool with one constrained parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the operation and the only valid scope, which is likely enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could still benefit from a note on when to choose reset_pose over the set_* siblings.

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 does state that only scope='all' is valid, which matches the schema's const: 'all'. However, it adds no further meaning about what scope represents beyond that single constraint.

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 names a specific verb ('Reset'), a specific resource ('Armature'), and the target state ('base pose'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_bone_pose, get_pose, or apply_smplx_pose, which all do different things.

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 when to use the tool: when the existing Armature should be returned to its base pose. It also states a hard constraint, 'Only scope='all' is valid,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool.

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