delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'delete' which implies destruction, but does not explicitly mention that the operation is irreversible, what side effects occur (e.g., broken references, removal from scene), whether permissions are required, or what happens to dependent objects. The description fails to add context beyond the obvious action.

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, short sentence with no fluff. It is extremely concise and front-loads the core action. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient brevity, but it still earns credit for having no wasted 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 destructive operation with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is markedly incomplete. It does not mention the permanence of deletion, any confirmation or undo options, how to retrieve handles (e.g., from list_objects), or what the expected result is. The agent has almost no guidance beyond the tool name.

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 has 0% description coverage; the only hint about the parameter is the word 'handles' in the description, but it does not explain what a handle is, how to obtain it, or its format beyond the schema's array of integers. The description does not add meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 'Delete objects by handle' clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'objects', and specifies the distinguishing method (by handle). It is specific enough to act, though it does not elaborate on what 'objects' refers to in context or contrast with specific siblings beyond the fact that no other tool is named 'delete'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of selection vs. handles, and no conditions for when not to use it. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap; the agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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