Stage Prop Pin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains persistence in world.json props, history retention, how the edits file preserves the pre-pin position, and that clear=True restores that position. It also discloses the scene-page requirement and emitted events (prop_pinned / prop_unpinned), giving the agent a clear behavioral picture.

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 core action and consequences are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and most subsequent detail (prerequisites, persistence, events) is relevant. It is dense and lengthy, but not repetitive; the main cost is that a few operational details are packed into a single paragraph.

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 description is substantially complete for a complex, unannotated mutation tool: it covers prerequisites, side effects, persistence, reversibility via clear=True, and emitted events. The main gaps are the unexplained scenes parameter and the under-specified person parameter, which matter given 0% schema description coverage.

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 gives useful meaning for bone (with example bone names and wrong-name behavior), clear, scene, and object, but does not explain the person parameter's expected value/default or the scenes parameter at all. The coverage is helpful but incomplete for a 6-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: pin a prop to a bone of a person's body, with concrete examples (drummer's sticks, guitar on a player). It clearly distinguishes the action from related stage tools by describing the prop-person relationship and the downstream riding behavior across poses, takes, and user following.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing: place the prop and person first via stage_set with a start pose, then pin. It also describes the clear=True mode for unpinning and the prerequisite that the scene be open on a page. It does not explicitly name when not to use this versus alternative anchoring or object tools, 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.