remove_pose_search_roled_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes further: it explains the no-op semantics concretely ('no match = no write, reported as already_absent') and discloses a non-obvious side effect not in annotations — the schema is re-finalized and finalized_channels changes. That is genuine behavioral context.

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 action, then idempotency, then side effect, then return shape — a logical order with little waste. The explicit Returns block is slightly verbose given the field list, but every clause carries information.

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 supplies the return shape itself, and it covers idempotency, the re-finalization side effect, and the two selector modes. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 schema already documents all three parameters, including the role-or-index mutual exclusion. The description's 'by role or by index' simply restates this and adds no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove a roled FPoseSearchRoledSkeleton entry from a UPoseSearchSchema') and explicitly names the sibling it inverts ('inverse of add_pose_search_roled_skeleton'). An agent can distinguish it from the add tool 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?

The description names the add tool as the inverse and gives clear context for when the tool applies (removing a specific roled entry by role or index). It does not, however, route the agent against the many other removal siblings (e.g. remove_pose_search_channel_from_schema) or state prerequisites beyond the schema target.

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