create_pose_asset_from_anim_sequence

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

Discloses the exact idempotent contract (existing asset returned unchanged with already_existed=true and saved=false, nothing saved) and the failure path (success=false, saved=false, save_error). These go well beyond the bare idempotentHint=true annotation and tell the agent precisely what state changes to expect.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the idempotency contract, then the return fields. Every clause carries information the agent needs, with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the success/failure semantics, and the idempotency behavior, while annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond reiterating that the source must be a real UAnimSequence; baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a UPoseAsset') plus its provenance ('built from a real UAnimSequence's frames') and that it saves the result. The phrase 'built from a real UAnimSequence' distinguishes it from the sibling create_pose_asset, which does not derive from an animation sequence.

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 source ('from an anim sequence') implicitly signals when this tool applies, but the description never names an alternative such as create_pose_asset or add_pose_to_pose_asset, nor states when-not to use it. Usage is inferable but not explicitly routed.

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