blender_reset_pose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether rotation, location, and scale are all reset, whether existing keyframes or animation data are affected, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response confirms. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the mutation and its target are stated immediately. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition should do more work: what exactly gets reset, whether animation/keyframes are impacted, and what to expect on return. As written it is too thin for a mutation tool.

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% for the single required 'armature' parameter, and the description only echoes the word 'armature' without specifying the accepted identifier form (name, index, selected object). It does not compensate for the schema gap.

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: returning all pose bones of an armature to rest pose. The word 'all' and 'rest pose' clearly distinguish it from sibling mutators like blender_set_pose and blender_pose_aim. No explicit sibling naming, but the semantics are unambiguous.

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 never states when to use this tool versus blender_set_pose, blender_pose_aim, or blender_key_pose, nor any prerequisites (e.g. armature must be selected or in pose mode). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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