remove_data_layer_instance

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

Goes well beyond annotations: names the underlying subsystem call, describes read-back verification (GetDataLayerInstance must be null), clarifies the non-WP error behavior, and explains idempotency semantics (already_deleted=true when nothing referenced the asset). This adds substantial behavioral context on top of the destructiveHint/idempotentHint 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-loaded with purpose, then preconditions and behavior, then the return shape. Mostly tight, though the internal API name (UDataLayerEditorSubsystem::DeleteDataLayer) is slightly incidental detail that a caller doesn't strictly need.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the return fields (data_layer_asset_path, deleted, already_deleted, instance_name, note), so an agent knows what it will get. For a single-parameter mutation tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description correctly relies on it. The description adds no new syntax or format detail about data_layer_asset_path, 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+resource ('Removes a data layer instance from the editor world's World Partition') and explicitly names its sibling inverse create_data_layer_instance. An agent can distinguish it from similar remove_* tools like remove_actor_from_data_layer_instance without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly states the precondition that a World Partition world is required and that a non-WP map returns an error rather than swapping the editor world, which is real routing context. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusion conditions beyond the WP constraint.

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