remove_gameplay_tag

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that count_gameplay_tag_references always returns 0 by construction, that the tool rewrites DefaultGameplayTags.ini wholesale reordering it and dropping comments, and that git diff on the ini is the real oracle rather than the success flag. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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 purpose before the two cautions, and every sentence carries weight. The dense dash-delimited phrasing and inline Returns block make it slightly heavier than ideal, but nothing is 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, non-idempotent, wholesale-ini-rewriting tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the missing behavioral context, the reference-audit workflow, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is absent.

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 parameter, so the schema already documents the tag argument with an example. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, so the 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 gameplay tag from its ini source list') and implicitly scopes it away from the table/object/redirect variants among its siblings. An agent can immediately tell this acts on the ini source list rather than a table row or object tag.

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 prescribes the preconditions and workflow: audit with find_blueprint_node_references and a binary grep of Content/ first, then add_gameplay_tag_redirect if anything still points at the tag. It names the alternative tools and the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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