set_pose_search_schema_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it specifies that an existing binding under the role is REPLACED and that a roled entry is created when none exists. It even reports previous_skeleton_path in the return, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before overwriting. It stops short of full disclosure only because it doesn't state whether the change is auto-saved.

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 the idempotency rule and the alternative-tool routing, then a compact inline return shape. Every sentence carries information and none is filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description inlines the returned fields (asset_path, role, previous_skeleton_path, new_skeleton_path, changed, saved), states the mutation semantics, and routes to the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'idempotent by role' framing adds a little meaning to `role` (the key that scopes the replace), but does not contribute syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (bind/rebind) and resource (USkeleton of the schema's FPoseSearchRoledSkeleton entry under `role`), naming the exact sub-structure being edited. It is clearly distinguishable from the add_pose_search_roled_skeleton sibling it explicitly references.

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 an explicit conditional alternative: use add_pose_search_roled_skeleton instead when adding a second character's role without disturbing the first. It also clarifies the idempotent-by-role replace-vs-create semantics, so an agent knows exactly when this tool is the right call.

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