remove_blend_space

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond them: a pre-flight class verification before deletion, plus the outcome fields (deleted, already_existed, note?), which is valuable for a destructive call with no output schema. It stops short of stating what happens to assets that reference the blend space.

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, both load-bearing: the first front-loads the action and its precondition, the second enumerates the return shape. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter destructive asset deletion with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, precondition, and return shape adequately. The one meaningful gap is the blast radius of deletion (what happens to referencing assets or packages), which an agent performing cleanup would want to know.

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%, so the single asset_path parameter is already documented as the long path of the UBlendSpace. The description adds nothing about path format, expected syntax, or whether the path must exist, so 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 and resource ('Delete a UBlendSpace asset') and adds a precondition ('after verifying the asset is a UBlendSpace'), so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as remove_blendspace_1d, remove_blendspace_sample, or remove_blend_profile, which an agent must choose between by name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. Given the dense cluster of blend-space removal tools (remove_blendspace_1d, remove_blendspace_sample, remove_anim_composite), the description should say which asset variety this covers and when to prefer one over another; it leaves that entirely to inference.

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