Delete a UBlendSpace1D asset after verifying its class, returning package name and deletion status for safe Unreal Engine asset cleanup.
Delete a UBlendSpace1D asset after verifying the asset is a UBlendSpace1D.
Returns: { asset_path, asset_class, package_name, deleted, already_existed, note? }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_path | No | Long path of the UBlendSpace1D. |
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, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the asset type is verified before deletion and enumerates the response fields (deleted, already_existed, note). The 'already_existed' field is a useful behavioral cue about what happens when the asset is absent.
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 tightly-scoped sentences with the action front-loaded and the return contract second; nothing is wasted. It is slightly terse on the when-to-use side, but the structure is clean.
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 single-parameter removal tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: the type-check precondition and the return fields. No output schema exists, yet the inline Returns signature compensates for it.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents asset_path as the long path of the UBlendSpace1D. The description references asset_path only in the return shape and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Delete a UBlendSpace1D asset') and adds the type-verification precondition, which is concrete. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never names the closely-related remove_blend_space, leaving the exact boundary between the two ambiguous.
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 only guidance is the implicit precondition that the asset must be a UBlendSpace1D; there is no statement of when to choose this over remove_blend_space or any other removal tool. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.