Delete object from plate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds limited context by specifying 'current plate', but does not disclose consequences like permanence, undo options, or impact on associated settings. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a baseline 3 is appropriate, with no contradiction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 11 words that states the action, resource, and key mechanism with no filler. It earns its place entirely and avoids restating schema fields.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the basic what and where, but misses important contextual information such as prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), behavior on invalid IDs, or post-deletion plate state. It is adequate for a trivial delete but leaves gaps in operational context.

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% for the sole parameter object_id, and the description only says 'by its id'—redundant with the parameter name—while adding 'current plate' context. It fails to explain how to obtain the ID, whether it is plate-local or global, or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type, so the description provides minimal added semantic value.

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 ('an object from the current plate'), and the modifier ('by its id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_preset. It goes beyond the title by specifying the deletion mechanism, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., transform_object, duplicate_object) or when not to use it. It gives clear context ('current plate') but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references, which is a significant gap for an AI agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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