delete_object

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, which signals destructive behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotation; it does not detail consequences like permanent removal or behavior on missing objects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds only the 'by name' scoping.

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: 'Hapus objek berdasarkan nama.' (Delete object by name.) It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema. The description is sufficient for basic selection, and annotations provide the destructive warning. However, it could benefit from noting that it deletes a single object (not batch) or mentioning error behavior when the object is not found. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is nearly 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?

The schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that the name parameter identifies the object to delete, which adds a bit of meaning over the schema property title. However, it does not add format details, constraints, or edge-case semantics, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 the action (delete) and the resource (object) with a specific criterion (by name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_delete_by_type and purge_orphans, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for deleting a single object when its name is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or refer to sibling tools. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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