ue_umg_remove_widget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that removal is recursive and that the root widget is not removable, which are useful traits. However, it lacks information about side effects such as undo behavior, error handling when the widget is not found, or whether it persists immediately. These gaps make the behavioral transparency partial.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, with no wasted content.

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 two-parameter removal tool, the description gives essential behavior and a key limitation, but it omits parameter semantics and potential side effects. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the tool is only moderately complete. An agent might successfully use it for simple cases but could struggle with exceptional scenarios or parameter correctness.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, and the description does not explain 'widget_blueprint_path' or 'widget' beyond the tool's name. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it offers no details about expected formats, how they identify the target, or how they relate to each other. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter values.

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 the action: 'Toglie un widget dall'albero' (removes a widget from the tree) and specifies the recursive scope 'con tutto quello che contiene' (with everything it contains). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_umg_add_widget or ue_umg_set_widget_property, 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 provides clear context for using the tool (removing widgets) and includes an important usage restriction (the root cannot be removed, and to empty a tree one should remove the root's children). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for an agent.

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