remove_pose_search_schema

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the type-check that REFUSES deletion of the wrong class, and idempotency semantics on missing assets. It does not cover auth/permission requirements, but adds real context beyond the annotations.

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 and asset type, then the distinguishing behavior, then the return shape. Two compact sentences plus a returns line; nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape ({ schema_path, deleted, already_existed, asset_class?, note? }), which covers the main ambiguity. For a single-parameter destructive tool this is nearly complete; only permission/auth context is absent.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented as a '/Game/...' asset path. The description adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, 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 ('Destroy') and resource ('UPoseSearchSchema asset') and immediately distinguishes itself from the generic delete_asset by naming the typed-delete mechanism. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from the closest sibling.

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?

Names the alternative (generic delete_asset) and gives the condition that selects this tool over it: it refuses to delete a non-UPoseSearchSchema asset so it can't wipe the wrong asset. Also notes idempotency on missing assets. No explicit 'do not use when' exclusion, but the routing rationale is clear and actionable.

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