Deletes a UAnimSequence asset from Unreal Engine after verifying its class. Returns asset path, class, and deletion status.
Delete a UAnimSequence asset after verifying the asset is a UAnimSequence.
Returns: { asset_path, asset_class, package_name, deleted, already_existed, note? }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_path | No | Long path of the UAnimSequence. |
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 destructive nature is covered. The description adds behavior beyond the annotations: it states that deletion occurs only after verifying the asset class, and it documents return fields including already_existed and an optional note. It does not discuss reference cleanup or irreversibility, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The action and verification condition are front-loaded, and the return shape is compactly summarized in a single line.
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 simple single-parameter deletion tool, the description gives the essential action, verification behavior, and return fields, while annotations carry the safety profile and the input schema documents the parameter. It does not clarify whether asset_path is required despite the schema lacking a required list, and it does not discuss reference or dependency handling, leaving a small gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter asset_path is already documented as the 'Long path of the UAnimSequence.' The description does not add syntax, requiredness, or format information beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a UAnimSequence asset'. It also adds an important verification condition ('after verifying the asset is a UAnimSequence'), which makes the purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby deletion siblings such as delete_asset or remove_anim_montage, so it stops short of a 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?
Usage is implied by the operation itself: use this tool to delete a UAnimSequence asset. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no alternatives named despite many sibling deletion tools. The verification condition is a useful prerequisite, but not a full usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.