motion_add_database_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the operation mutates a database and that 'save' persists the change, and it describes what the return value contains. It also explains nuanced options like disable_reselection and sampling_range, though it does not cover prerequisites or duplicate-entry behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with a one-sentence purpose, an Args list, Returns, KB reference, and a realistic example. Each section earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and a provided output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, the return shape, persistence behavior, and gives an example plus a KB anchor. What is missing is explicit guidance on when the database must already exist and whether adding an existing sequence has any special behavior.

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?

Every parameter is described with meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults: mirror_option names its allowed values, sampling_range specifies format and the [0,0] sentinel, and save explains the post-mutation side effect. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add an AnimSequence entry to a Pose Search database.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like motion_create_pose_search_database and motion_inspect_pose_search_asset. The included example further anchors the purpose.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Add' and the resource type, and the KB pointer gives an external reference, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The agent must infer when this tool is preferable to related motion tools.

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