load_pose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses important context: CLO's API cannot bend joints itself, poses must be built in CLO and reused, and loading order affects arrangement points. It still does not state whether loading replaces an existing pose, whether the operation is reversible, or what errors may occur.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, explains why the tool exists, gives an important ordering instruction, and then lists parameter meanings. Every sentence adds useful context without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete for calling the tool: it explains purpose, ordering dependency, and all parameters. It could be stronger with explicit side-effect or overwrite behavior, but it covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 documents all three parameters: file_path is the .pos file, pose_and_translation also applies the pose's scene position and defaults to pose-only, and bottom_to_ground stands the avatar's feet on the ground afterwards.

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: 'Pose the avatar from a .pos file.' It also names a sibling tool (save_pose) as a source of the file, so an agent can distinguish this loading operation from pose-saving or avatar-importing operations.

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 clear usage context: load the pose before placing garment pieces because arrangement points follow the avatar. It also implies that poses originate from CLO's pose tools or save_pose. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name an alternative for a conflicting scenario.

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