remove_render_target_2d_array

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 real behavioral detail beyond them: it loads and type-verifies the asset before deleting, and on wrong type or missing path it returns deleted:false with a `note` instead of raising. This explains the safety mechanism and error contract that annotations cannot convey.

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 action, then the type-verification rationale, then alternatives, then return shape. Every sentence carries information; it is dense but slightly long, with the longer em-dash clauses adding some weight.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract ({ asset_path, asset_class, package_name, deleted, already_existed, note? }), the error behavior, and the sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% for the single asset_path parameter, so the schema already documents that a bare name is not resolved. The description reinforces the type/path requirement implicitly but adds no new syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (2D-ARRAY render target / UTextureRenderTarget2DArray), and explicitly differentiates itself from the generic delete_asset and the typed siblings remove_render_target_2d and remove_texture_2d_array. An agent can place it precisely without opening any 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?

States the selection condition explicitly: use this typed tool for a UTextureRenderTarget2DArray, use remove_render_target_2d for a plain 2D target and remove_texture_2d_array for a static UTexture2DArray, and prefer it over delete_asset to avoid deleting the wrong type. Both when-to-use and named alternatives are given.

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