ue5_delete_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive nature (delete) and introduces dry_run as a safe reference-checking mode, which is valuable risk context. It omits details like irreversibility, what happens to connected pins, or failure behavior when references exist, but the core safety pattern is well covered.

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 English description is a single efficient sentence with the safety caveat front-loaded. The appended Chinese translation duplicates the same content, adding length without new information, which prevents a top score.

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?

Parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, and the description adds the key dry_run safety cue. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain expected return values, failure modes, or consequences when dry_run detects references, leaving an agent to guess at post-call behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the dry_run behavior already documented in the schema ('Check references only, do not delete') and adds no new parameter-level semantics for node_id or blueprint_path.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Delete a Blueprint node') that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling ue5_delete_asset by resource type. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast its scope, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: use dry_run=true first for nodes that may be referenced elsewhere. This is actionable context for safe invocation, though it does not address when to choose this tool over alternatives like ue5_delete_asset or ue5_disconnect_pin.

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