ue_delete_asset

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: refusal on reference and side effects of forced deletion (broken references). It does not cover other aspects like undo or trash behavior, but for a deletion tool this is substantial.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary details in a structured way (separate Args section). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, and behavioral caveats. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke and how to set parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: path (with example format and folder support) and force (overrides reference check). This is critical for correct usage.

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 clearly states it deletes an asset or folder from the Content Browser, with a specific use case (fixing a wrong import). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_delete_actor by specifying 'asset o una cartella', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explains default behavior (refuses deletion if referenced) and the consequence of forcing (broken references), implicitly guiding when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other deletion needs, so it loses one point.

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