unity_asset_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, or impacts references). This is adequate but leaves ambiguity for a destructive operation.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It could include more detail about behavior without becoming verbose, but it is not overly short.

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 no output schema and the destructive nature of the tool, the description lacks details about return values or confirmation. It is minimally complete but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the consequences of invoking it.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (path and port). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, this is acceptable. The port parameter is well-documented with a usage hint.

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 'Delete an asset from the project.' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (asset), making the purpose straightforward. It is distinct from sibling tools like unity_asset_list or unity_asset_import, though it could explicitly differentiate itself from similar deletion tools like unity_gameobject_delete.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the parameter 'port' mentions parallel-safe routing, implying usage in multi-instance scenarios, but this is not elaborated. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided.

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