remove_pose_curve

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

With destructiveHint=true already set, the description still adds substantial context beyond annotations: it runs in an undo transaction, saves the asset, treats an absent curve as a no-op success (removed=false, saved=false), and explains failed-save handling. This is exactly the extra detail the annotations do not 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?

The main action is front-loaded, and the return-value list earns its place since no output schema exists (aside from noting a 'success' field that the Returns object omits). It is dense but not padded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation mechanics, no-op case, save failure, and returned fields, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of permissions/auth notes and lists a 'success' field not present in the Returns payload.

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 both pose_asset_path and curve_name. The description references 'the named curve' and 'UPoseAsset' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific verb (delete/remove) and a precise resource (the named curve from a UPoseAsset), and even cites the underlying API (UPoseAsset::DeleteCurves). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remove_pose_asset or remove_anim_curve_name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as remove_pose_asset. The only conditional behavior described is the absent-curve case, which is behavioral transparency rather than usage guidance.

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