delete_material_function

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

Goes well past the destructiveHint annotation, disclosing that open editors close, undo history may be cleared, the action is permanent, and no reference/class validation occurs. It also warns about the misleading success field, which is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action, then the caveats, then the return trap. Dense but every clause carries information; the run-on structure of the first sentence is the only minor cost.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations beyond the safety hints, the description fully shoulders the load: it explains the destructive side effects and even documents the return shape and the deleted/success trap. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents material_function_path fully. The phrase 'any asset there goes' hints that the path is unvalidated, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the 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 (force-delete) and resource (the asset at material_function_path), and clarifies that despite the name it deletes any asset there because it bypasses class checks. It does not name the sibling delete_asset or bulk_delete_assets to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of 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?

Conveys the conditions that make this the right tool — no reference check, no class check, permanent — which implies 'use when you want to bypass safety checks.' It never explicitly names an alternative or states when-not-to-use it, leaving that inference to the agent.

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