delete_object

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

The description mentions that it returns a message and screenshot, and that include_screenshot can be set to False for cost savings. It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, irreversible, or if there are any side effects (e.g., cascading deletions) beyond the declared return. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and while it adds some transparency (screenshot behavior), it lacks details on deletion semantics.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, clear parameter explanations, and a return statement. Every sentence adds value: explaining the screenshot flag and view orientation selection. No redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate coverage: it explains all parameters, gives guidance on usage (screenshot for intermediate steps), and states the return. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions or effects of deletion, but for a simple mutation tool, this is reasonably complete. No output schema means description must convey return, which it does.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains doc_name and obj_name (identifying the target), and explains include_screenshot and view_name with their defaults and purpose. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax constraints or examples beyond what the schema already shows (defaults, enums). It does add meaningful context (screenshot token saving logic), which is helpful, but not exhaustive.

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 an object in FreeCAD' with specific verb (delete) and resource (object in a document). It distinguishes from siblings like edit_object or create_object. However, it could be more explicit that it deletes from a specific document and that deletion is permanent, but the core purpose is clear.

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 context on when to use include_screenshot (e.g., for intermediate steps) and when to set it to False to save tokens. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but it implies usage context. No direct comparison to sibling tools like edit_object or get_object, but it does give practical guidance on one parameter.

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