Delete elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the cascade behavior where deleting a group also deletes its children. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether an undo is available, permission requirements, or what happens to references to deleted elements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive scope note is placed immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though terse enough that brevity shades into under-specification.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine accepted target formats, whether the operation is reversible, or what the tool returns.

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 single required parameter 'targets' has an empty schema with 0% description coverage (no type, no structure), and the description never mentions it. The parenthetical at best hints that targets may be groups or elements, which is a thin semantic contribution against a completely undocumented parameter.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Delete elements') that distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like bb_delete_path, bb_delete_texture and bb_delete_keyframe. The parenthetical scope note sharpens the operation further. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent away from overlapping tools such as bb_set_element or bb_undo.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bb_undo or how this differs from other destructive siblings. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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