unity_gameobject_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It states deletion but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible (e.g., undo support), whether child objects are also deleted, or whether there are permission or state constraints (e.g., only in edit mode). This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from breaking into usage notes or parameter details. While not verbose, it is minimal and could be improved with additional context.

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 complexity of deletion (destructive action) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, confirmation steps, or error scenarios. Siblings include many gameobject tools, so more context on when to use this versus other methods is 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'path' is described as 'Hierarchy path or name' in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('GameObject from the scene by path or name'), which is specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like unity_gameobject_create and unity_gameobject_info by indicating deletion, but does not explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like unity_asset_delete, though the resource type (GameObject vs asset) is implied.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unity_gameobject_set_active or direct code execution. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., scene must be loaded) or exclusions. Siblings include many gameobject-related tools but no differentiation is provided.

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