remove_skeletal_mesh_morph_target

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's added value is the inline return payload (removed bool, remaining_morph_targets count), which substitutes for a missing output schema; it still says nothing about persistence, undo, or failure behavior when the named target doesn't exist.

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?

Two tightly scoped lines: the action statement first, then the return shape. No filler, no restating of the name, and the purpose is front-loaded for fast scanning.

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 simple two-parameter destructive edit, the description covers what is removed, from what, and what comes back, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. Only secondary details such as save/persistence requirements and error behavior on a missing target are absent, which keeps it just short of full completeness.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by name' reinforces which parameter is the lookup key but adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Remove a morph target from a skeletal mesh') plus the lookup key ('by name'), which cleanly separates it from read siblings like get_skeletal_mesh_morph_targets or add/rename variants. It does not explicitly reference any sibling, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether the asset must be saved afterward, whether removal is persistent, or which sibling to reach for instead. The operation name makes intent obvious, but the description contributes no routing help.

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