The answer is yes, Animate object would work on a corpse. The exact effect would depend on the size of the corpse.
While there are specific defined terms in D&D 5e there are also a equal number of that rely on what the word means in English.
Object - a material thing that can be seen and touched.
Creature - an animal or person.
However there is a caveat. In various effects, powers, and abilities. The D&D 5e rules are consistent in referring to creatures as things that are living or animate. Objects as inanimate things like tables, chairs, rocks, books, feathers, etc. It not spelled out but it is consistent.
The things to remember is that D&D 5e rules are not to function as a wargame. They do not define the boundaries of what is possible during a campaign. The setting is what defines that. Instead they are a tool to aid the referee in adjudicating the action. For example the description of humans don't spell out every detail that could come up. The mechanics about humans are those that the authors feel that are useful or come up often. The important of which is the effect being human on character creation. The author expect referee to use what they know about humans to adjudicate anything that the rules don't cover because it is implied that humans in a D&D setting are just like people in real life only living in that world.
One implication of this is that animate objects doesn't change any other physical property of the object other than to animate with the stats provided. If you were to say animate a block of salt, possible considering what salt miners carved out of their mines, and it was to walk into water, then it is reasonable to rule that it would be affected adversely as salt dissolves in water. Perhaps by treating water as a acid attack on the animated object.
So a corpse animated as a object would still be a corpse and subject to decay, smelling bad, etc. It would not gain the benefits of being undead although at first glance it would be hard pressed for a character to tell the difference. One area where I can see the difference being important is trying to animate a skeleton. It is reasonable to assume that the various create undead spells joins the bones together to form a complete animated skeleton. While a long dead skeleton is merely a pile of separate objects of bone.
For stuff that has no real world analogue, elves, magic, etc. The authors expect the referee to fall back on their knowledge of the fantasy genre. Because the implied assumption that D&D is being used to depict a fantasy setting. Which is why they included a list of inspirational works in Appendix E on page 312.
In fantasy it is tradition for some spells to work on anything, a lightning bolt doesn't care if its target is a person, animal, or a piece of furniture. Some spells to only work on people, for example charming or enchanting a princess. And other spells to work only on objects, like the animated furniture from Fantasia.
No, the first two points don't hold for any caster with Mage Hand.
Pickpocketing isn't just taking something from a pocket; it's a subtle skill which requires doing so unnoticed, after all. This is more than just "doing it while the victim's back is turned" - the human body registers slight touches and subtle sensations, like the weight of an object. A pickpocket knows how to beat these senses - by touching the victim in other places to confuse the senses, for example.
But the Mage Hand is implied to be clumsy, with limited dexterity - not conducive to stealth.
(Note that nothing in the Mage Hand description says that the hand has significant dexterity - it can "open an unlocked door", for example, or "pour the contents out of a vial", but apparently not manipulate lockpicks or disarm traps, which requires more precision. It's limited almost exactly to simple tasks that you don't have to practice.)
So it's not that the Mage Hand eliminates the normal skill check as such - instead, the rules as written do not contain a "normal" skill check for picking a pocket with a Mage Hand. (A standard thief can't pick locks with a Mage Hand either, even if they somehow have one.)
Most people can undo the buckle on a bag, or shoe. But can you do so so swiftly and subtly that the holder of the bag (or wearer of the shoe) doesn't even notice? Try it. It's not as easy as it sounds. It needs significantly more manual dexterity than just being able to undo a buckle - it's more like being able to play a piano.
Under the old-school skill system of 3e or 4e, the correct way to handle this would have been with a skill roll and an extremely hard DC - as GM, personally I'd have set the DC 10 or even 20 points higher than the usual for that kind of pickpocketing. The old skill system would then have allowed top-level characters to pull it off anyway.
But 5e discourages this "everything is technically possible with the right roll" approach, in favour of limiting skills to "actions anyone could attempt". "Pick a pocket with a magical force" isn't something anyone could attempt, and there's no obvious RAW reason why being able to pick pockets by the normal means would help you use a Mage Hand to do so.
(And it is typically next to impossible to pickpocket successfully with a fully visible, somewhat clumsy, disembodied hand. So even a disadvantage is not enough penalty - it should just be impossible.)
Legerdemain clearly gives the hand more dexterity, not just invisibility. This allows for more complex tasks.
Short answer
If the standard hand doesn't have enough manual dexterity to pick locks or disarm traps, it doesn't have enough for the equally tricky task of picking pockets.
Best Answer
There are no rules for weapons sticking in the target after attacks
As cool as this concept is, there is no rule for it under RAW so it lies firmly under the realm of DM fiat.
Previous editions had rules for whether or not ammunition (such as arrows) broke on impact based on a variety of factors. In 5th edition we only have this quote from the PHB weapon rules on ammunition:
From this we can assume that the ammunition remains on the battlefield but there is no advice given to it sticking in an enemy. There is a similar question on reusing arrow stuck in my character and the answer was that there is no rules for it.
How would I rule it?
With all that said how would I rule it if a player tried this at the table? Under rule of cool I think this should probably work. But if it works then there are appropriate drawbacks as well.
If arrows burn during a fireball they are also destroyed and cannot be recovered at the end of the fight. If you can recover a dagger with mage hand, your enemy can also hurl it back at you. This is a ruling that either applies all the time or not at all.
I have always played that weapons and ammunition are just objects and continue to exist after the attack so can be interacted with during combat. Whether they are stuck in a target or on the floor comes down to how the attack was narrated and sometimes how good the attack roll was. It has never caused any issues to rule it this way at my table.