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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the operation is irreversible ('This cannot be undone'), preserves the rig ('The rig stays'), is free, and returns the model. This fully informs the agent about the consequences of calling the tool.

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 description is concise: three short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or fluff content.

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?

The description is sufficient for a destructive tool with full schema documentation and an output schema. It covers the action, scope, irreversibility, cost implication, and return value. It does not cover error cases like deleting a nonexistent animation, but that is not essential for selection and invocation.

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 schema itself documents all four parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('animation'), target container ('Low-Poly model's version'), and outcome ('return the model'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like start_lowpoly_animate or export_lowpoly_model.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when one animation needs to be removed. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it. The note about the rig staying provides helpful context but does not directly route the agent relative to other tools.

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