add_pose_to_pose_asset

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare destructive/non-idempotent/non-readonly): it discloses the overwrite-on-name-collision behavior, the no-skeleton precondition, and detailed failure semantics (success=false, saved=false, save_error). This is exactly the mutating detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 core action and keeps the precondition, alternative, and failure mode tight. The trailing 'Returns: {...}' sentence partly duplicates the prose that already named num_poses/num_tracks/already_existed and adds fields not introduced earlier, so there is minor 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining save-failure fields. Together with the precondition and overwrite semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation correctly.

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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the pose_name format example and the asset path format. The description's 'under the given name' adds only marginal meaning, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (add a pose to a UPoseAsset), the source of the pose (copied from the skeleton reference pose), the naming semantics, and the save side effect. It also distinguishes itself from create_pose_asset_from_anim_sequence, which handles the animation-frame case, so an agent can separate it from nearby siblings without opening schemas.

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 routes the animation-frame case to create_pose_asset_from_anim_sequence and states the refusal condition (asset has no skeleton). It lacks explicit guidance on rename_pose_in_pose_asset / remove_pose_from_pose_asset alternatives, which are the nearest siblings, so it stops short of the full when/when-not treatment.

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