add_animation_asset_to_pose_search_database

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the entry is added as enabled over its full range, the database is saved, an existing asset is left alone with already_existed=true, the asset type is not checked, the search index is not rebuilt, and the exact return fields are listed. This gives an agent a complete picture of side effects and retry semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action and save behavior come first, followed by the already-existed caveat and index rebuild note, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its side effects, an important follow-up call, and the return fields. Nothing needed to invoke or understand the result is missing.

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 100%, so the two parameters are already documented. The description adds only that the animation asset type is not checked, which is behavioral rather than parameter-level meaning; it does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Append an animation asset to a UPoseSearchDatabase as an enabled entry over its full range, then save the database.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_animation_asset_from_pose_search_database and build_pose_search_database_index, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 post-use guidance ('run build_pose_search_database_index afterwards') and a key caveat ('The asset type is not checked'), but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_pose_search_database or inspect_pose_search_database. Context is clear, but exclusions are not stated.

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