delete_construction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Delete', which implies destructive intent, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, what happens to dependent features, what errors occur for unknown names, or any authorization requirements.

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 with no filler. It communicates the verb, resource, and parameter in a compact, scannable way.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It covers what is deleted and how it is identified, but omits side effects, error behavior, and any preconditions, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking a deletion operation.

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%, but the description partially compensates by saying 'by name', clarifying that the single 'name' parameter identifies the construction entity to delete. It does not add format details, naming conventions, or behavior for invalid/missing names, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('construction plane / axis / point'), and states the selection mechanism ('by name'). It clearly differentiates from sibling create_construction_* tools and there are no competing delete tools in the sibling list.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a named construction entity to remove, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites such as whether the entity must exist first. No exclusions or alternative tool referrals are provided.

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