Delete a UAnimBlueprint asset after verifying its class, so only valid animation Blueprints are removed from an Unreal Engine project.
Delete a UAnimBlueprint asset after verifying the asset is a UAnimBlueprint.
Returns: { asset_path, asset_class, package_name, deleted, already_existed, note? }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_path | No | Long path of the UAnimBlueprint (e.g. /Game/Anim/ABP_Foo). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the type-verification guard and the exact result shape (deleted, already_existed, note), which tells the agent how to detect success versus no-op.
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 lines, with the action and its safety precondition front-loaded and the return shape second. No wasted words.
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 single-param destructive tool with no output schema, the inline Returns declaration compensates for the absent output schema and the class-verification note guards misuse. Minor gap: no mention of reversibility or permission requirements.
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% with a single well-described asset_path, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is already documented.
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 (UAnimBlueprint asset) plus a precondition (verify class). An agent can tell it apart from generic delete_asset or bulk_delete_assets, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 'after verifying the asset is a UAnimBlueprint' clause implies a usage precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance (e.g., use delete_asset for non-anim-blueprint assets). Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.