remove_pose_search_channel_from_schema

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by enumerating return fields such as removed, already_absent, previous_count, and saved, which reveal outcome states and confirm the change is persisted.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a returns field list. There is little waste, though the long returns enumeration could be trimmed slightly; with no output schema it usefully substitutes for one.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return object fields, and annotations handle the safety profile. Combined with a fully-documented 3-parameter schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit usage exclusions are 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents schema_path, channel_type, and channel_index with precedence rules. The description only restates 'by index or type' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (Remove), a precise resource (UPoseSearchFeatureChannel_* from UPoseSearchSchema), and the two selection mechanisms (by index or type). It also names the inverse sibling add_pose_search_channel_to_schema, letting an agent distinguish it without opening the 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?

The phrase 'by index or type' and the inverse-of-add note give implied context for when this applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance or disambiguation against removal alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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