create_pose_asset

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: 'no undo transaction' plus precise idempotency semantics (an existing UPoseAsset is returned untouched with already_existed=true and saved=false, even when bound to another skeleton) and explicit failure modes (name taken by another asset class, unknown skeleton, failed save with saved=false and save_error).

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-loads the core action, then layers idempotency, error conditions, and alternatives without filler. The trailing return-field list earns its place because there is no output schema.

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?

Covers creation, defaults, idempotency, error handling, and return shape in one place; with no output schema present, the explicit Returns block makes the definition fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by supplying the default for skeleton_path (the engine SkeletalCube_Skeleton) and by declaring that an unknown skeleton is an error, neither of which appears in the schema.

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 ('Create an empty UPoseAsset (no poses)'), gives the exact construction path (package_path/name) and binding (skeleton_path with default), and distinguishes itself from the pose-adding and anim-derived creators among its siblings.

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 agent: 'Add poses with add_pose_to_pose_asset; to build one from animation frames use create_pose_asset_from_anim_sequence.' Names both alternatives and the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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