blender_pose_aim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the precise aim target (head-to-continuing-child head, not the tail), parent-first ordering, and the return value (residual angle per bone in degrees). It does not explain what reset does or what happens to bones not listed in aim, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core concept and the distinguishing alternative. It is information-rich with little waste, though the inline example makes it slightly hard 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 nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the key concept, ordering, and return value well. However, the 'reset' default behavior and 'armature' target are never addressed, so it is not fully complete.

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 compensate. It explains the complex 'aim' parameter via an inline example and its world-direction semantics, but leaves 'reset' and 'armature' entirely undocumented in both schema and description, covering only one of three params.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Pose by direction') and clarifies the mechanism (aiming each bone's limb along a WORLD direction). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling blender_set_pose, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Prefer this over blender_set_pose for authoring poses'), giving a clear condition for selection. It lacks any when-not guidance or prerequisites, so it stops short of a full 5.

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