remove_pose_search_database

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine beyond-annotation value: the typed-delete guard that refuses to remove the wrong asset class, and the idempotent-on-missing behavior. It does not cover permission/auth requirements, but the class-guard context is the most decision-relevant trait here.

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-loads the purpose, follows with the behavioral caveat that distinguishes it from a generic delete, and closes with the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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, but the description supplies the return shape ({ database_path, deleted, already_existed, asset_class?, note? }), covering the one thing an agent would otherwise lack. Combined with full schema coverage of the single parameter and annotations covering safety, nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single database_path parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing further about parameter format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 (Destroy) and resource (UPoseSearchDatabase asset), and explicitly positions itself as the typed counterpart of create_pose_search_database. It also distinguishes itself from the generic delete_asset sibling, so an agent can select correctly without opening either 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?

Makes the selection condition clear: it is the type-safe alternative to the generic delete_asset, because it refuses to delete a non-UPoseSearchDatabase asset. It also notes idempotency on missing assets. It stops short of an explicit 'prefer this over delete_asset when deleting pose search databases' directive, but the routing intent is inferable.

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