delete_meta_sound

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds operational detail: deleting a missing asset is a no-op and confirm=true is required to actually delete. It also discloses the return payload, which annotations do not cover, though it omits downstream effects such as broken references.

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?

Two sentences plus a return list, front-loading the action and then the key behavioral constraints. Every element earns its place, including the return fields because no output schema exists.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, the confirm requirement, idempotency semantics, and the return shape, making it largely self-contained. It lacks explicit guidance on choosing it over generic delete_asset and does not mention reference or asset-cleanup side effects.

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 both parameters are already documented by the schema itself. The description reiterates the confirm=true condition but adds no format, default, or path syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the 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, 'Delete', and a specific resource, 'UMetaSoundSource asset', scoped to the project. This clearly distinguishes it from generic asset deletion such as delete_asset and from node-level removal tools like remove_metasound_node without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Provides implied usage for MetaSoundSource assets and states a precondition (confirm=true), but does not explicitly say when to use this instead of generic alternatives like delete_asset or bulk_delete_assets, nor when deletion should be avoided. Routing is left to inference from the asset type.

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