remove_blackboard_key

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

Rich behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations: it saves the asset after mutating, drops the FBlackboardEntry then calls UpdateKeyIDs to re-index, and specifies the idempotent outcome (missing key returns removed:false / already_absent:true). This adds concrete mutation and failure semantics that annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true) only gesture at.

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-loaded with the primary action, then scope, then idempotency, then the return shape. Dense but each clause carries information. The Returns block is justified because no output schema exists, though the text is slightly packed.

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, but the description supplies the full return shape inline (removed, already_absent, key_count, saved, save_error, keys array). Combined with idempotency and re-indexing behavior, an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: key_name is 'as add_blackboard_key created it', and index is explicitly the asset's own Keys array excluding inherited parent keys. This clarifies the mutual-exclusion and inheritance nuance beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ('Remove a key from a UBlackboardData asset') and immediately frames it as the inverse of add_blackboard_key, which lets an agent distinguish it from its sibling without opening a 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?

Clear usage context: it names the sibling (add_blackboard_key) and states the addressing modes (by key_name as add created it, or by index). It also clarifies that parent-chain keys are not touched, which is an implicit scope boundary. However, it doesn't state explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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