Delete GameObject

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: the operation is Undo-able in the Editor but becomes file-wise destructive once the scene is saved. It omits failure modes (e.g., behavior when the path doesn't exist) but adds real value.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core action and its destructive caveat are front-loaded, and the second sentence is a directly actionable instruction.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations carry the safety hints and with no output schema to explain, the description covers what it does, how to obtain the argument, and the durability risk. The only gap is error/not-found behavior, which is minor here.

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 100%, so the path parameter's format and example are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond that by naming the canonical source of the value (unity_find_gameobjects) and stressing that it must be exact, which reinforces 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (GameObject) with the identifying key (path). It is unambiguous against siblings like unity_create_gameobject or unity_set_transform, and the parenthetical scope note clarifies what deletion actually means.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to source the path from unity_find_gameobjects and to double-check before calling, which is real routing guidance to a sibling. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or what to do if the path is ambiguous, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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