remove_hlod_layer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the asset is loaded first, the tool REFUSES deletion if the type doesn't match, and it is idempotent on missing assets. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure expected on top of 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?

Three tight sentences plus a return-shape line, with the core action and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information (scope, typed-delete rationale, idempotency).

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return fields inline ({ asset_path, deleted, already_existed, layer_type?, note? }), covering the success and idempotent cases. Combined with the behavioral notes, nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the /Game asset path format. The description restates the path requirement but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 (destroy a UHLODLayer asset) plus the resource scope (/Game path), and explicitly names the sibling it mirrors (create_hlod_layer) and the generic tool it improves on (delete_asset). An agent can distinguish it from other remove_* tools 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?

Explicitly contrasts with delete_asset, explaining the typed-delete safety rationale (it refuses to delete a non-UHLODLayer), which tells the agent exactly when to prefer this over the generic delete. Idempotent-on-missing is also stated as a usage expectation.

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