remove_pose_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: force delete with no confirmation, no undo, nulls references to it, idempotent deleted=false + note behavior for missing assets and wrong-class assets, and failure during PIE. This is exactly the extra operational context annotations cannot carry.

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 destructive action and its irreversibility, then idempotency, then sibling routing. Dense but every clause adds decision-relevant information; the only minor cost is a long single paragraph that an agent must parse in one pass.

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, yet the description supplies the return shape (asset_path, asset_class, package_name, deleted, already_existed, note?). Combined with destructive/idempotent/PIE behavior and sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool 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?

Only one parameter (asset_path) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only implicit guidance that the path must resolve to a UPoseAsset, without syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for schema-dominant parameter documentation.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (UPoseAsset), including the precondition that the path must load as that class. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling deletion tools (delete_asset, remove_pose_from_pose_asset, remove_pose_curve), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Names the condition that selects it versus alternatives ('To drop one pose or curve inside the asset use remove_pose_from_pose_asset or remove_pose_curve; delete_asset removes an asset of any type') and instructs to check get_asset_referencers first. Explicit when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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