remove_texture_2d_array

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

Annotations only give the destructive/idempotent safety profile; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the verify-then-delete sequence, that wrong type or missing path returns deleted:false with an explanatory `note` instead of raising, and the exact return shape {asset_path, asset_class, package_name, deleted, already_existed, note?} in the absence of an output schema.

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 action, then each following clause earns its place: sibling differentiation, failure semantics, idempotency, and the return shape that substitutes for a missing output schema. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it deletes, that it type-checks first, what happens on failure, idempotency, and the response fields. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already states the full object/package path requirement and that bare names are not resolved. The description adds no further syntax, format, or edge-case detail about asset_path, 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 ('Delete a static TEXTURE array') and immediately differentiates itself from two siblings by name: it is 'the typed counterpart of create_texture_2d_array' and safer than the generic 'delete_asset'. It also rules out the near-name-collision sibling remove_render_target_2d_array, so an agent can select correctly 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (typed deletion of a UTexture2DArray, after loading/verifying) and when-to-use-something-else ('safer than the generic delete_asset, which deletes whatever sits at that path'), plus the clarifying exclusion 'Do not confuse it with remove_render_target_2d_array'.

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