remove_pose_from_pose_asset

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description goes well beyond annotations: it discloses the undo transaction, the save step, the absent-name no-op contract (removed=false, saved=false, asset untouched), and the failed-save contract (success=false, saved=false, save_error). This is exactly the mutation/edge-case detail an agent needs.

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 action and its transaction/save behavior, then edge cases. Slightly wasteful: the trailing 'Returns:' block re-lists fields (was_present, removed_count, contains_after, num_poses, pose_names) already named in the prose, so there is some duplication.

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 the description carries the return contract and does so fully, including success/failure shapes and the untouched-asset case. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for pose_name by specifying what happens when the name is absent (a successful no-op rather than an error), which the schema's terse 'Name of the pose to remove' does not convey.

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 ('Delete the named pose from a UPoseAsset') and even names the underlying operation (UPoseAsset::DeletePoses). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_pose_to_pose_asset, rename_pose_in_pose_asset and remove_pose_asset without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the precise name and by the no-op semantics for an absent pose name, but the description never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over, say, remove_pose_asset. Adequate but no explicit routing guidance.

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