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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, so the description goes further by disclosing the cascading behavior—removing a figure also removes its incident connectors in the same revision. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation hints and does not contradict them.

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 two crisp sentences, front-loading the action and scope before the prerequisites. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-object removal tool with rich parameter descriptions and annotations, the description covers the core behavior, the cascading deletion effect, and the key prerequisites. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 schema already documents each parameter clearly, including editToken privacy and stale-revision failures. The description reinforces the editToken and revision requirements but does not add detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Remove one object') and clarifies the resource scope, including that incident connectors are removed with a figure. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_shape and update_shape despite the title being slightly broader.

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 clear operational context by requiring editToken and the latest revision, which are essential preconditions for a destructive edit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but since no other sibling handles deletion, the intended use is unambiguous.

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