Delete an Unreal Engine asset with reference checks and read-back verification. Prevents broken references by saving only the packages that reference it.
Delete an asset with reference checks and read-back verification. Save scope = referencing packages only. | 级联删除资产（删后回读验证；保存作用域=引用者包）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_path | Yes | Asset path, e.g. /Game/BP_Test | 资产路径 | |
| max_attempts | No | Delete retry attempts (default 3) | 删除重试次数 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.1Input schema / properties / asset_path / descriptionAdded value: +"Asset path, e.g. /Game/BP_Test | 资产路径"Input schema / properties / max_attempts / descriptionAdded value: +"Delete retry attempts (default 3) | 删除重试次数"v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety transparency burden. It discloses the destructive action, reference checks, post-delete read-back verification, and the save scope. It could additionally explain behavior when references are found or whether deletion is reversible, but it provides meaningful operational detail.
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?
One compact bilingual sentence front-loads the action and then states two important behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place without repetition beyond intentional localization.
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 destructive tool, the description covers the action, the verification behavior, and the persistence side effect. It does not specify return values or failure semantics, but 'read-back verification' implies outcome checking and no output schema is declared.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both asset_path and max_attempts, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
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 uses an explicit verb ('Delete') and resource ('asset'), and adds distinguishing behaviors ('reference checks and read-back verification'). It clearly separates this tool from related operations like ue5_delete_node or ue5_save_asset.
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 intended use is obvious: delete an asset. It also provides an important contextual caveat about save scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the domain clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.