ue_destroy_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the action is irreversible (except via editor undo) and scopes it to the current level. It doesn't discuss side effects like reference cleanup, but the essential consequence is clearly communicated.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds the irreversibility caveat and a useful pointer to a sibling tool. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter destruction tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, consequence, and parameter acquisition. There are no missing essentials relevant to the tool's complexity.

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 already documents actorPath as 'Full path to the actor to destroy.' The description goes further by explaining how to obtain actor paths ('Use ue_get_all_actors to find actor paths'), adding practical meaning beyond the schema's field description.

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 begins with 'Destroy (delete) an actor' — a specific verb and resource — and scopes it with 'from the current level.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ue_spawn_actor (creation) and ue_get_all_actors (listing).

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 explicit workflow guidance by pointing to ue_get_all_actors for finding actor paths. It also warns about irreversibility, which signals caution. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, there is no direct alternative to destroying an actor, so the guidance is adequate.

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