motion_create_pose_search_database

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It explicitly explains that overwrite deletes an existing database asset before creation, that save persists the asset package, and that sequences are optional seed data. This goes beyond the schema by revealing side effects and mutation 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 structured into clear Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections with no filler. Every line contributes meaning: parameter semantics, return shape, knowledge base reference, and a concrete invocation example. It is detailed but remains scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the 7 parameters, absent annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is nearly complete: it covers parameter meanings, return structure, and gives an example. The main gap is that it does not state whether the referenced schema asset must already exist or whether overwrite is required to replace an existing database, though the KB reference mitigates this.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates fully by explaining all 7 parameters in plain terms. It clarifies what each parameter means, gives concrete examples for search_mode, and provides a runnable usage example, making the parameters actionable despite the bare schema.

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 and resource: 'Create a Pose Search database asset and optionally seed animation sequences.' This clearly distinguishes the database creation tool from sibling tools like motion_create_pose_search_schema, while the optional seeding note adds scope without ambiguity.

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 description makes the creation context clear but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as motion_create_pose_search_schema or motion_add_database_sequence. The 'optionally seed animation sequences' line implies a use case, but there are no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-selection cues.

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