add_pose_search_roled_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description sharpens the idempotency into concrete observable behavior (no-op returning added=false, already_existed=true rather than duplicating the entry) and enumerates the return payload. The one gap is that with destructiveHint=true, the description never explains what the write can destroy/clobber, so the destructive profile is left to the annotation alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then idempotency, then the alternative, then the return shape. Uses a compact parenthetical to define the roled skeleton. Slightly dense in the first sentence, but every part earns its place; the return enumeration is justified because no output schema exists.

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?

No output schema, so the description correctly spells out the return fields. Params are fully schema-covered and the mutation/idempotency profile is stated. For a mutating schema-editing tool it is nearly complete; only the destructiveHint semantics (what is at risk) remain unaddressed.

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 all four parameters (role, asset_path, skeleton_path, mirror_data_table_path). The description adds the composite concept (Skeleton + optional MirrorDataTable under a Role) and 'multi-character' context, but no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (Append) and resource (a roled FPoseSearchRoledSkeleton, i.e. Skeleton + optional MirrorDataTable under a Role) against a named target (UPoseSearchSchema for multi-character search). It clearly names the sibling it is not (set_pose_search_schema_skeleton) and even the inverse operation is inferable. An agent can distinguish this from the other pose-search schema tools without opening any 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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-alternative condition: use set_pose_search_schema_skeleton 'if you actually want to REPLACE the skeleton bound to a role.' It also states the idempotency precondition (entry already under that role => no-op). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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