blender.delete_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a pre-flight existence check and the OBJECT_NOT_FOUND failure mode. However, it omits whether the deletion is reversible, whether it can be committed/rolled back within a transaction, and what permissions or scene state are required.

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 short sentences, operation stated first, failure mode second. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage embedded in a scene with explicit transaction siblings, the description should address reversibility or transaction interaction to be fully complete.

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?

One parameter, "name", at 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies that the name must refer to an existing object in the active scene, which adds a real constraint beyond the bare schema, but does not specify lookup semantics (exact match, path, case sensitivity).

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?

Specific verb ("Delete") plus resource ("an object from the active scene"), with scope made explicit. The verb alone cleanly separates it from create_object, update_object, and get_object among the siblings.

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 action implies its own usage, but nothing states when to reach for this over alternatives like update_object, nor whether the deletion participates in the transaction tools (begin_transaction/commit/rollback) that sit alongside it. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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