remove_render_target_cube

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds critical behavioral detail: it loads and verifies the UTextureRenderTargetCube type first, and wrong type or missing path returns deleted:false with a note rather than raising. It also lists the return fields, which is valuable since no output schema is provided.

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 primary action, then adds the safety caveat, alternatives, and return shape in compact, information-dense sentences. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter destructive delete tool, the description covers the safety profile, the type-verification behavior, alternative tools, and the exact return shape despite having no output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly 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%, and the single asset_path parameter is already documented with the exact format and the warning that a bare name is not resolved. The description reinforces the type-check requirement but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so this sits at the high-coverage baseline.

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 CUBE render target,' and immediately distinguishes it from the typed counterpart create_render_target_cube, the generic delete_asset, and the flat variants. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does 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?

Explicitly says this is safer than delete_asset because it verifies the asset type, and names remove_render_target_2d / remove_render_target_2d_array for the flat alternatives. It provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance against real sibling tools.

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