Delete scene

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, it adds crucial behavioral context: the tool permanently deletes and cannot target the active scene, and it states the required permission level. This goes beyond annotations and is valuable for safe invocation.

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 concise, three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action (delete for good) and then provides the critical constraints and permission requirement. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

The description is complete for a deletion tool with one parameter. It covers the action, the target, the safety caveat, and permission requirement. It doesn't explain the return value, but since there is no output schema and deletion typically returns a simple success, this is not a major gap. The annotations provide safety hints, so the description is sufficiently 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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'sceneId' with a basic description. The tool description adds significant semantic meaning by explaining that the id must be exact and that the active scene is never affected, which clarifies how the parameter is used and its constraints.

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), the resource (scene), and critical scoping (by id only, never the active scene). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete-canvas-elements' and 'delete-document' by specifying the resource and the id-based targeting.

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 clear context on when to use (deleting a scene permanently) and includes a critical exclusion (never delete active scene, activate another first). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling list includes update-scene and restore-scene, so it implicitly suggests alternatives for non-destructive actions.

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