Delete a UAnimComposite asset in Unreal Engine after verifying its class, reporting whether it was deleted or already absent.
Delete a UAnimComposite asset after verifying the asset is a UAnimComposite.
Returns: { asset_path, asset_class, package_name, deleted, already_existed, note? }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_path | No | Long path of the UAnimComposite. |
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 idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it performs a type check before deleting and returns fields like already_existed and note, hinting at guard behavior. It still omits auth requirements or whether deletion is reversible.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and the return shape is compactly stated with no filler. Every sentence carries information.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, which is genuinely helpful for a delete tool. Combined with annotations covering the mutation profile, the definition is nearly complete; only a note on failure behavior 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%, so the single asset_path parameter is already documented. The description adds no path-format hints (e.g. /Game/...), so it does not exceed what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the exact resource type (UAnimComposite asset), which distinguishes it from neighbors like remove_anim_montage, remove_anim_sequence, and remove_blend_space. The added verification clause further pins down the scope.
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 UAnimComposite' clause implies the precondition for calling it, but the description never states when to use this versus another removal tool or any surrounding workflow. Usage is inferable but not explicit and offers no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.