Remove a sprite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive side effect that not only the sprite but everything on it is deleted. It does not mention permanence or error behavior, but the core destructive trait is transparent.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and clearly states the destructive scope without wasting words.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description and schema together are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool: pass the sprite name and expect the sprite and its contents to be removed. It does not cover return values or error cases, but these are not essential for this basic operation.

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?

The schema provides only a string field named 'name' with no description, and the tool description does not explicitly define the parameter. However, the phrase 'Deletes a sprite' makes it reasonably clear that the parameter is the sprite's name. Some detail is missing, such as exact-name matching, but the single parameter is simple enough to infer.

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 the explicit verb 'Deletes' with a clear resource ('a sprite') and adds scope with 'everything on it.' This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like add_sprite or clear_scripts, even though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the description does not mention alternatives such as clear_scripts for situations where only scripts should be removed. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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