delete_asset

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing exactly what is destroyed (references nulled, object purged, .uasset/.umap removed from disk) and the failure mode: a read-only or in-use file fails with file_still_exists=true and the asset reappears on editor restart. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the operation, then prerequisite, then success/failure semantics, then returns. No filler sentences; every clause carries operationally relevant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields (delete_success, asset_verified_deleted, file_still_exists, etc.). Combined with the destructive-operation semantics and prerequisite check, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the schema already documents that asset_path accepts an object path or a bare package path, so the description adds no further parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: 'Force-delete one asset with no confirmation or undo.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bulk_delete_assets, delete_actor, and the various remove_* tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Check get_asset_referencers first,' naming the sibling tool to run beforehand. It does not, however, contrast when to use this single-asset delete versus bulk_delete_assets or other deletion tools, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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