remove_primary_asset_rule

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

Even with destructiveHint already declared, the description adds real context the annotations cannot: it writes DefaultGame.ini, errors on an unknown type, and warns that the running Asset Manager is not refreshed so its scanned data for the type survives. That is exactly the side-effect information an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 the mutation and its persistence effect, which is the right ordering. The return fields are, however, listed twice — once inline ('removed_count, type_count_after and saved') and again as a structured 'Returns:' block — which is minor waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape itself and covers the error path and the stale-runtime-cache caveat. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with an example ('Item') in the schema. The description only restates the 'one type' scoping, adding no syntax or naming detail beyond what the schema already carries, 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 (remove) plus the exact resource scope (every PrimaryAssetTypesToScan entry of one type in Asset Manager project settings). The effect on persistence (writes DefaultGame.ini) makes it clearly distinguishable from the read-side siblings like get_primary_asset_types and scan_primary_assets.

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 description gives one operating condition ('an unknown type is an error') and one runtime caveat, but never states when to reach for this tool versus add_primary_asset_rule or the cook-rule siblings. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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