delete_state_tree

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact no-op semantics and the deleted:false/already_existed:false return shape on re-runs. It does not, however, mention that the 'confirm' flag must be true for deletion to occur.

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 short sentences plus a compact return signature, with the core action front-loaded and the idempotency clarification immediately following. No wasted text.

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 usefully specifies the return object. It covers the idempotency edge case well. Minor gaps remain for a destructive tool – e.g. whether the asset must be saved, what happens to references – but the essentials are present.

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%, so both parameters (tree_path, confirm) are fully documented in the schema, including the honest-headless safety note on confirm. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 resource ('a UStateTree asset from the project'), a distinct asset class that separates it from the many mesh/anim/audio deletion siblings. An agent can identify the target unambiguously.

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?

Deleting is the implied usage, and the idempotency note clarifies safe re-runs, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives like delete_asset or bulk_delete_assets, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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