delete_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by: 1) Clearly stating this is a destructive operation (implied by '删除'), 2) Explaining the return format in detail, 3) Warning about the dangerous '*' option. It doesn't mention authentication needs or rate limits, but for a local 3ds Max tool this is reasonable.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first. The Args and Returns sections are well-structured. The multiple example calls are helpful but slightly repetitive; they could potentially be condensed while maintaining clarity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness: clear purpose, parameter semantics, return format details, usage examples, and appropriate warnings. It gives the agent everything needed to understand and invoke this tool safely and effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by providing extensive semantic information about 'object_name': exact names, wildcard patterns, comma-separated lists, and the special '*' value. It includes syntax examples and practical usage guidance beyond what the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('删除' - delete) and target resource ('3ds Max 场景中的指定物体' - specified objects in 3ds Max scene). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_object', 'clone_object', and 'select_objects' by focusing on permanent removal rather than modification, duplication, or selection.

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 context about when to use this tool (to delete objects by name with wildcard support) and includes a caution about using '*' to delete all objects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like 'select_objects' for temporary operations or 'rename_object' for identification changes.

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