remove_orphaned_ofpa_actors

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

Far exceeds the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false): it discloses that entries are re-verified against a fresh 3-layer scan, that dry_run defaults to and is forced to true under the active-world gate with no override, that deletion is raw file removal of .uasset/.uexp/.ubulk rather than ObjectTools::ForceDeleteObjects, and that loaded packages are refused unless force_save=true. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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 core purpose and the gating rule, and every block carries information. However, it is unusually long with dense parenthetical asides and editorializing ('plausibly part of why in-editor OFPA actor deletion crashes') that, while informative, could be trimmed without losing the operational rules.

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, so the description supplies an explicit Returns block enumerating map_path, would_delete, deleted, refused_not_orphan, refused_loaded, deleted_count and note, along with the falsifiable conditions for each. Combined with the usage rules, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning about parameter interaction: it explains why dry_run defaults true and is force-overridden by the active-world gate, what force_save actually permits (and what it never overrides), and that actor_paths are re-verified rather than trusted. It stops short of new format/syntax detail for map_path or actor_paths, which the schema already covers.

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: 'Honest-gated deletion of __ExternalActors__ (OFPA) orphan packages', and explicitly positions itself against the sibling list_orphaned_ofpa_actors, whose stale output it refuses to trust. An agent can distinguish this delete tool from the list tool without opening either 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?

Gives explicit conditions: only classification='confirmed_orphan' is eligible; everything else is refused regardless of dry_run/force_save. It also states the active-world restriction (dry_run is ALWAYS forced true when map_path is the currently open world) and names the recommended workaround (open a different map first), plus the force_save prerequisite for loaded packages.

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