create_pose_search_database

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds real value on top: it tells the agent the asset is saved to disk and that the response distinguishes created vs already_existed and reports saved state. One minor tension: the already_existed field hints at repeat-call no-op behavior while idempotentHint is false, but this is not a direct contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The enumerated return fields are dense but justified because no output schema exists; nothing is repeated from annotations or 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?

For a create-and-save tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description compensates for the absent output schema by listing the full return shape. It is slightly thin on failure/auth context (e.g., what happens if the schema path is invalid or the package path is not writable), 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 name, schema_path, and package_path are already fully documented, including the default '/Game/MCP'. The description adds only the binding relationship for schema_path, not format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 pair (create and save), the exact resource (a UPoseSearchDatabase data asset) and the binding relationship to a UPoseSearchSchema. This cleanly separates it from siblings such as create_pose_search_schema, inspect_pose_search_database, and add_animation_asset_to_pose_search_database without needing to inspect 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?

The phrase 'bound to a UPoseSearchSchema' implies the schema must already exist before calling, which is a usable prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus create_pose_search_schema, set_pose_search_database_schema, or add_animation_asset_to_pose_search_database, and no exclusions or ordering guidance.

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