add_pose_search_channel_to_schema

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare write/destructive/not-read-only), the description discloses that the tool finalizes via PostEditChange and saves, and critically that success can remain true even when the save fails, instructing the agent to read the `saved` field. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and the add/overwrite branch are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the trailing Returns list is justified because there is no output schema. The first sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries signal.

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-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: the add vs overwrite outcome, the save step, the save-failure quirk, and the returned fields. The only missing piece is a note on required permissions or side effects on the parent asset, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 schema already documents schema_path, channel_type, and weight (including the default 1.0 that resets an existing channel's weight). The description restates the weight-reset interaction but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 and resource (add a feature channel of channel_type to a UPoseSearchSchema asset) and also names the fallback behavior (overwrite Weight when the channel already exists), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling remove_pose_search_channel_from_schema. An agent can tell what this does 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?

The description reveals the upsert semantics (add-or-overwrite-if-present) so an agent can infer when it applies, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives like set_pose_search_schema_properties or when not to call it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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