create_pose_search_schema

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/destructive profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds value by naming the return fields 'created', 'already_existed', and 'saved', which imply the call tolerates a pre-existing asset and reports save outcome. However these are only field names, not explained behavior, so it doesn't reach the higher bar.

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 compact segments: purpose first, then the return shape. No filler or redundant restatement of the name. Front-loading is correct, though the return list is a bare enumeration rather than prose.

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?

There is no output schema, so listing the return fields (schema_path, skeleton_path, schema_cardinality, channel_count, etc.) usefully compensates. Combined with fully documented parameters and the annotation safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the create-vs-existing-asset semantics remain implicit.

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 name, sample_rate (with ClampMin/Max and default), package_path, and skeleton_path. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline 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+resource: 'Create and save a UPoseSearchSchema data asset bound to a USkeleton'. This is precise enough to distinguish it from create_pose_search_database or inspect_pose_search_schema. It stops short of naming a sibling or scope boundary, so it isn't quite a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent is left to infer whether this precedes create_pose_search_database or the add_pose_search_channel_to_schema / set_pose_search_schema_* tools. Only the 'bound to a USkeleton' phrase hints at context.

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