Delete Construction History

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the action (delete). It does not mention reversibility, undo implications, or required permissions, which would be valuable for a destructive operation.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without extra words, earning its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, output schema exists), the description provides minimal but sufficient context. However, it lacks completeness regarding behavioral expectations and usage scenarios, making it barely adequate for a destructive 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions 'nodes or the entire scene' which aligns with the 'nodes' and 'all_nodes' parameters but does not add new semantic details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the work.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Delete construction history from nodes or the entire scene.' It specifies the verb (delete) and the resource (construction history), and distinguishes between scope options (nodes vs entire scene). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'modeling.delete_faces'.

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 such as 'modeling.freeze_transforms' or 'modeling.center_pivot'. It lacks context on prerequisites, conditions for use, or cases where other tools might be more appropriate.

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