Deletes unused resource paths reported by object_remove after rechecking scene references; refuses any path still in use. Resource deletion is irreversible.
删除 object_remove 报告的 unused_paths（工程内相对路径的资源或素材包文件夹）。删除前再次核对：当前场景仍在引用的一律拒绝。资源删除不可撤销。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | object_remove 返回的 unused_paths。 | |
| instance_id | No | 官方 list_instances 返回的 instance_id，与 project_path 二选一。 | |
| project_path | No | 目标工程的绝对路径。与 instance_id 二选一；只开了一个工程窗口时都可省略。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the two most important traits: deletion is irreversible, and a pre-delete reference check will refuse still-used paths. It does not cover permission requirements, partial-failure behavior when only some paths are rejected, or what the response reports back.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the source constraint, then the safety guard and irreversibility warning. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no repetition.
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 destructive, three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the source of input, the validation guard, and irreversibility. It is slightly thin on what happens when some paths are refused and how results are reported, which matters for a batch destructive operation.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the paths must be the unused_paths values returned by object_remove and represent project-relative resource files or asset pack folders. It adds nothing about instance_id/project_path beyond what their schema descriptions already state.
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+resource: delete the unused_paths reported by object_remove, and clarifies those paths are project-relative resources or asset pack folders. This clearly separates it from the sibling object_remove, which only reports them rather than deleting.
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?
States the precondition that paths must originate from object_remove's unused_paths, and a hard exclusion rule: anything still referenced by the current scene is rejected. It does not name an alternative tool for cleanup scenarios (e.g. works_cleanup), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.