Delete a UAnimMontage asset after verifying it is a UAnimMontage. Returns the asset path, class, package name, and whether the asset was deleted or never existed.
Delete a UAnimMontage asset after verifying the asset is a UAnimMontage.
Returns: { asset_path, asset_class, package_name, deleted, already_existed, note? }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_path | No | Long path of the UAnimMontage. |
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, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond them: a pre-delete type check, plus a return payload revealing that the call reports deleted and already_existed, which tells the agent how to interpret partial/idempotent outcomes.
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, front-loaded with the action and constraint, followed by the return shape. No filler, every clause 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?
No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return fields, which compensates for most of that gap. Combined with full annotation coverage and a single fully-described parameter, the agent has enough to call and interpret the tool; only alternative-tool routing is absent.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents asset_path ('Long path of the UAnimMontage'). The description adds no format, syntax, or path-resolution detail beyond the schema, 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?
Specific verb+resource ('Delete a UAnimMontage asset') with an added scope constraint ('after verifying the asset is a UAnimMontage'), which distinguishes it from the generic delete_asset and from remove_anim_sequence. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of 5.
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 type-verification clause functions as an implied precondition (target must actually be a UAnimMontage), which is usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives in the very large sibling set (delete_asset, bulk_delete_assets, remove_anim_sequence).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.