delete_brush

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses persistence (writes the file), editor integration (auto-reload), and the important conflict behavior (asks first, defaults to keeping the editor version on unsaved edits). This is exactly the side-effect information an agent needs for a mutating tool.

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?

Two sentences: the action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat is stated in a compact second sentence. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description provides the core action, the file-write side effect, and the editor reload/conflict behavior. It does not mention error conditions or index-shift consequences, but those are not critical for basic invocation.

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 description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents map_path and brush_index (including that brush_index comes from get_entity). entity_index is left undocumented, and the description only weakly infers it from 'an entity', so this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource ('Delete one brush from an entity'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete_entity (whole entity vs. one brush). No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 gives clear context: use this when deleting a single brush from an entity, and the sibling list makes it easy to contrast with whole-entity deletion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls just short of a 5.

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