remove_rvt_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description meaningfully extends them: it discloses the type-check refusal behavior ('REFUSES to delete it if it is not a URuntimeVirtualTexture'), what exactly gets destroyed (the ASSET, not the binding), and the missing-asset idempotency semantics. This is the kind of 'what gets destroyed' context the annotations cannot express.

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 verb+resource and the key differentiators, and every clause carries information. Slightly dense with parentheticals and capitalized emphasis, but nothing is wasted and length is appropriate for the tool's risk profile.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully supplies the return shape ({ asset_path, deleted, already_existed, asset_class?, note? }). Combined with the safety, idempotency, and binding-scope details, 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter asset_path is fully documented in the schema as a '/Game/... asset path'. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

Specific verb (destroy/delete) plus a precisely named resource (URuntimeVirtualTexture asset), and it explicitly positions itself against siblings: it is the 'mirror of create_rvt_asset' and the typed alternative to the generic delete_asset. An agent can distinguish it from delete_asset and unassign_rvt_from_landscape 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?

It states when to use this tool vs alternatives directly: prefer it over generic delete_asset because it refuses non-RVT assets, and use unassign_rvt_from_landscape first to detach from a landscape. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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