Delete object from plate

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/referenceReadOnly annotations, the description discloses that deletion is permanent within the session, cannot be undone through the API, preserves other object ids, and invalidates the last slice. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 front-loaded: the core action is first, followed by permanence, prerequisite steps, side effects, and a specific edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites, irreversibility, side effects, and object identity nuances. An agent has everything needed to invoke delete_object correctly and predict the consequences.

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 covers object_id well by specifying it comes from list_objects and not from array index or file name. The description adds extra semantic nuance by explaining how it applies to duplicate_object copies, which goes beyond the schema and supports correct selection of the id.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one object from the current plate by id.' It clearly distinguishes this from related object tools like duplicate_object and transform_object, and the object-vs-preset distinction is clear given sibling delete_preset.

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 explicit actionable guidance: call list_objects first to get the id, re-slice afterwards because the last slice becomes invalid, and pass the copy's id when removing a duplicated object. This tells the agent exactly when and how to invoke the tool.

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