remove_socket_from_skeleton_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 adds real context beyond them: the asset is saved, a missing socket returns removed=false/already_absent=true without triggering a save, and it enumerates the return fields. The save short-circuit and idempotency semantics meaningfully extend the annotation set.

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 core action and idempotency rule, then a clearly delimited return block. Slightly verbose since the trailing return-type JSON is separate from the sentence flow, but every element is informative and none is wasted.

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 correctly takes on the burden of documenting the full return shape (removed, already_absent, socket_count, socket_names, saved). Combined with the sibling routing and idempotency rule, 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%, so both parameters (socket_name with case-insensitivity, skeleton_path with example) are already documented in the schema. The description restates socket_name conceptually but adds no format or matching detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Remove a socket from the socket list of a USkeleton asset') and explicitly distinguishes itself from remove_skeletal_mesh_socket by clarifying that skeletal-mesh-only sockets are untouched. An agent can separate it from its closest sibling without opening either 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?

Provides explicit routing: use this for USkeleton socket lists, and 'use remove_skeletal_mesh_socket' for sockets that live on a skeletal mesh. It also gives the edge-case condition (missing socket) so the agent knows the call is safe to attempt.

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