remove_behavior_config

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value: the typed-delete guard that refuses to wipe a wrong-class asset, and the return contract. It confirms idempotency rather than merely restating it, and discloses the type-safety behavior an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the differentiating typed-delete behavior, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mutation semantics, the type-safety guarantee, idempotency, and the exact return fields. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 there is a single required config_path parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, 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 (destroy) and resource (UGameplayBehaviorConfig data asset), and explicitly positions it against siblings by referencing create_behavior_config as its mirror and delete_asset as the generic alternative. An agent can identify exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the choice against the generic delete_asset: use this one because it is typed and refuses non-matching assets. That is strong alternative guidance, though it stops short of stating when this tool should NOT be used or any preconditions (e.g. asset must be loaded).

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