motion_create_pose_search_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive overwrite behavior, the save flag, and the return format. It does not mention failure modes (e.g., what happens if an asset exists and overwrite is false), but it covers the key behaviors for a creation tool. Slight room for more side-effect detail keeps it at 4.

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?

Well-structured with a one-sentence purpose, a terse parameter list, return info, KB reference, and example. No redundant filler. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 7 parameters, the description covers all of them, explains the return value, gives a knowledge-base reference, and includes a concrete example. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the KB link supports deeper investigation if needed.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the 7 parameters. It does so clearly: path is 'Content Browser folder under /Game', skeleton is 'Optional Skeleton or Skeletal Mesh asset used to seed the schema', sample_rate is 'Pose sampling rate in Hz', and overwrite is explicit about deletion. An example further clarifies usage.

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 'Create a Pose Search schema asset for Motion Matching databases,' which gives a specific verb, resource type, and domain. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_create_pose_search_database (which creates a database asset) and motion_inspect_pose_search_asset (inspection).

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 states its purpose and parameter roles, making clear that it is used to create a Pose Search schema. It does not explicitly cite alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to infer when to use it, especially with the KB pointer. A minor lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance prevents a 5.

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