ue_delete_asset

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

With no annotations, the description discloses default rejection of deletion if referenced and the risk of broken references. However, it does not cover error handling, undoability, or permission requirements, which would be helpful for a deletion tool.

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-loads the action, and lists parameters simply. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's primary behavior and parameters adequately. It lacks details on return values or error scenarios but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds concrete examples for path (e.g., '/Game/Imported/rock_01') and explains the force parameter's effect, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states it deletes an asset or folder from the Content Browser, provides a specific use case (remedying a wrong import), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rename or duplicate by focusing on deletion.

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?

It clearly says when to use (to fix an import mistake) and explains default refusal on reference detection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the risk of broken references serves as a caution.

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