delete_montage_section

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

With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false already declared, the description still adds substantial value: only the first match is removed, links from other sections (NextSectionName) are NOT updated, a missing name is a non-error, and a failed save yields success=false with save_error. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs.

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 dense paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action before the edge cases and return shape. The explicit return field list is justified because no output schema exists, though it is slightly verbose.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the match rule, the non-update of section links, failure semantics, and the full return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the FName case-insensitive comparison. The description repeats the case-insensitivity but adds no format or syntax meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource (the first composite section with that name on a UAnimMontage), plus the save side effect. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like remove_montage_slot or rename_montage_section without opening a 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?

The description explains edge-case behavior (missing name is a success with removed=false) but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as rename_montage_section or remove_anim_composite_segment. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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