delete_level_sequence

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

Annotations already carry destructive/readOnly/idempotent hints, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses permanence, the exact success predicate ('actually_deleted'), and the real-world failure modes (read-only file or a file held open by another process stays behind and fails the call). This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the action and its resolution rule, then the success condition, then the return shape. Dense and mostly waste-free; the inline Returns block is justified given there is no output schema, though it slightly bloats the prose.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers target resolution, permanence, success criteria, and failure modes, and it supplies the return fields the schema otherwise omits. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 already documents the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by specifying that matching is by asset name (not path), case-insensitive, and resolved to the first match under /Game.

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 precise verb ('Deletes') and resource ('Level Sequence asset'), plus unusual specificity about resolution: first sequence under /Game whose asset name matches, case-insensitive. An agent can immediately understand what this does and how the target is chosen, which distinguishes it from generic asset-deletion siblings like delete_asset.

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?

It explains how the target is resolved and the condition under which the call succeeds, which implies usage, but it never names an alternative (e.g. delete_asset, remove_anim_sequence) or states when not to use this tool. Guidance is present but indirect.

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