set_pose_search_schema_mirror_data_table

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description is not carrying that burden. It adds genuine behavior beyond them: the rebind (overwrite) semantics of an existing binding, the role-missing refusal, and the return payload including previous vs new path, changed, and saved. No conflict with 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the action and the failure condition, followed by a terse return-shape line. Every element earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return fields and the refusal condition, complementing annotations that cover safety. It does not explain the persistence/asset-save implications beyond the 'saved' flag, leaving a small gap, but it is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including role's 'empty = default role' semantics. The description's 'default role when omitted' restates what the schema already says rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies 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?

The description states a precise verb ('Bind (or rebind)') and a precisely-named resource ('the UMirrorDataTable of the schema's FPoseSearchRoledSkeleton entry under `role`'). An agent knows exactly what object is mutated. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as set_pose_search_schema_role or set_pose_search_schema_skeleton, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives real context on when the call succeeds: role defaults when omitted, and the call is 'Refused when no entry has that role' — a precondition an agent must satisfy before calling. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. adding a roled skeleton first), so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives and lands at 4 rather than 5.

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