model_delete_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important traits: the confirm-gate guard against accidental deletion and the safety boundary that the frame is never removed. It omits reversibility, what happens to objects connected to the deleted one, and required permissions.

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?

Two terse sentences with zero filler; the destructive action and its safety constraint are front-loaded in that order. Nothing is wasted or repeated from structured fields.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it addresses one parameter and one safety bound but leaves the object-identification and path parameters and the post-delete state undefined.

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 coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description only clarifies 'confirm' (must be true). It leaves 'target' format, plus 'work_dir', 'frame_path', and 'model_root', entirely unexplained — a significant gap given the undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and scope: "Delete one object." An agent can tell this is a singular destructive operation. Minor ambiguity: the tool name says 'device' while the description says 'object,' and no sibling is named as a contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ("Requires confirm=true") and a boundary condition ("never deletes the frame"), which is real usage guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over other manipulation tools (e.g., disconnecting vs deleting) or what happens to dependent objects.

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