remove_skeletal_mesh_socket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the side effect of also removing the skeleton twin, plus the concrete already_removed=true semantics of an idempotent re-run. It stops short of describing permissions or failure modes.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the action and its side effect, followed by the idempotency note. The inline return shape is somewhat terse but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 usefully supplies the return shape (removed, already_removed, socket_count), which keeps the definition self-sufficient. Combined with the side-effect note, it covers most of what an agent needs, though it could mention permission/PREREQUISITE context for a destructive operation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description references the socket removal context but adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail, so the 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+resource (remove a socket from a skeletal mesh) and adds a scope detail not obvious from the name: it also affects the skeleton twin. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like remove_socket_from_skeleton_asset, remove_static_mesh_socket, and rename_skeletal_mesh_socket.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation (delete a socket) and the description clarifies the skeleton-twin behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the closely related siblings (e.g., remove_socket_from_skeleton_asset). An agent must infer how they differ.

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