delete_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the deletion action but gives no caveats about irreversibility, potential side effects on dependent elements, or permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, target, and method. Every word is useful, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity and complete schema coverage, the description covers the basic invocation details. However, it lacks important contextual information such as the permanence of deletion or any side effects, which would be expected for a destructive operation. Since no output schema exists, the absence of return-value explanation is acceptable, but safety-related context 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the elementIds parameter ('The IDs of the elements to delete'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not offer syntax, formatting, or edge-case guidance.

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 tool deletes one or more elements from the Revit model by their element IDs. The verb 'delete' is specific, and the resource and method are unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_selected_elements or operate_element.

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: when you want to delete elements by ID. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as comparing with operate_element. There is no clear context that would help an agent decide between this and other manipulation tools, so it remains at an implied level.

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