set_bone_pose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important side-effect boundary: other bones are not reset, and it hints at local-space delta behavior. However, it does not explain whether the change is undoable, how absolute vs delta mode affects the existing pose, or what prerequisites exist, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either the action, the target resource, the scope, or a safety guarantee.

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 covers return values, and the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. Still, for a mutating tool with no annotations and 0% parameter-documentation coverage, the description does not fully explain mode semantics, prerequisites, or when another sibling should be preferred.

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 needed to clarify bone addressing, the 3-number rotation_degrees format, and the absolute/delta distinction. It only weakly implies delta mode via 'delta-rotate' and adds no real meaning beyond what the schema's property names and enum already provide.

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 and resource ('Set or locally delta-rotate one Pose Bone') and adds a scope constraint ('without resetting other bones') that distinguishes it from reset_pose and set_pose_batch. An agent can tell what this tool does and roughly what it is not for without opening the 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?

'One Pose Bone' and 'without resetting other bones' give clear contextual signals about when to choose this tool over batch or reset operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use rules, so it stops short of a 5.

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