set_pose_search_database_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 useful behavioral context beyond that: the indexing consequence ('a database without a schema cannot be indexed') and the return shape exposing previous_schema_path, which signals that an existing binding is overwritten. It stops short of stating outright what happens to the prior schema binding.

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, followed by a usage sentence and a compact return-shape line that earns its place given there is no output schema. Three tight sentences with no filler; only minor trimming possible.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly complete, and the inline return field list compensates for the absent output schema. The main remaining gap is an explicit statement that the previous schema binding is replaced.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the Schema-assignment intent but adds no path syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Bind') and precise resources (UPoseSearchSchema → UPoseSearchDatabase, assigning the Schema field). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like set_pose_search_schema_properties (mutating the schema) or build_pose_search_database_index (indexing the database).

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: 'right after creating a database with no schema, or to rebind an existing one', which implicitly ties it to create_pose_search_database and contrasts it with rebuild/index operations. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions explicitly, so it is not fully 5-level routing guidance.

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