delete_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool deletes a material, but does not disclose consequences (e.g., impact on objects using the material, reversibility, permissions needed). This is insufficient 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 very short and front-loaded. It conveys the core operation in one sentence and adds structured Args/Returns. It could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness, but it is efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, output schema present), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks behavioral context for a delete operation. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the missing behavioral transparency reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the parameter 'material_name' and says it is the name of the material to delete. While this adds basic context, it does not provide format or constraints beyond what the schema already conveys (type string, required). Adequate for a single simple parameter.

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 'Delete a material by name', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from other delete tools (e.g., delete_object) but does not explicitly differentiate from other material operations like 'assign_material' or 'set_material_property'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer that it's for deleting materials 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.