ue_delete_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states that deletion fails if other assets reference it, which is a key behavioral trait. This adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose if the operation is reversible or if there is a confirmation prompt, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediate constraint. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior but omits success behavior (e.g., confirmation message) and any post-deletion effects. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing on what to expect after 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 0%, and the single required parameter 'path' is not explained in the description. The description does not specify the path format (relative vs absolute), asset type, or scope. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on how to provide the path.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete an asset') and provides a distinguishing constraint ('Fails if other assets still reference it'). It is a specific verb+resource pair and stands out from sibling tools like ue_duplicate_asset or ue_destroy_actor by focusing on asset deletion with a reference check.

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 implies usage when an asset is no longer needed, and mentions a failure condition (if referenced). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ue_destroy_actor (for actors) or when to avoid it (e.g., if the asset is referenced). No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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