map_kinefx_joints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one key trait: unmapped names cause an error. However, it omits whether the operation mutates the skeleton or clip, what permissions/setup it needs, and how large/messy inputs are handled.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The failure-mode note is terse but 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meaning (especially max_joints) and usage context; the existing output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the input-side gaps remain.

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 loosely implies that clip_path is the clip's joint names and rest_path is the rest skeleton, but it never explains max_joints (default 4096) or the path formats, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (map) and resource (clip joint names onto a rest skeleton), scoped to KineFX/Mixamo workflows, so an agent can distinguish it from generic node tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like attach_kinefx_deform or list_joints, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never says when this mapping step is required (e.g., before deform attachment) or how it relates to sibling KineFX tools, leaving selection to inference.

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