ue_pcg_cleanup

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: the operation leaves the graph and volume in place. However, it does not explain the full scope of what gets deleted (actors, components, etc.) or the effect of the 'remove_components' parameter, leaving behavioral transparency incomplete.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main verb and states the core behavior without extraneous information. It earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the description provides only a single sentence and omits parameter semantics and additional side-effect details. It is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the operation's scope.

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 was expected to clarify the parameters. It does not mention 'label' or 'remove_components', so the agent gets no additional meaning about what inputs to provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancella' = deletes) and clearly identifies the resource (PCG-generated content on an actor) while noting what is preserved (graph and volume). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_pcg_generate and ue_pcg_spawn_volume.

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 implies the use case—cleaning up after PCG generation while keeping the graph and volume—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are mentioned.

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