etabs_delete_objects

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is an irreversible mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about the fact that deletion cannot be undone (that lives only in the schema's confirm param), what happens on partial failure, or whether an open model/selection is required.

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 verb, target objects, and targeting modes are all delivered in one pass.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering returns, the description is minimally adequate. It omits required-session state, the confirm gate behavior, and what happens when multiple targeting parameters are supplied simultaneously.

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 only 20% (confirm is the sole documented parameter), so the description must compensate. It does explain the three targeting parameters (names, group, selected) and the kind values, but leaves the interplay between group/names/selected and the precedence rules undocumented.

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 states a precise verb (Delete) and resource (frames, areas, points), and enumerates the three targeting modes. An agent can tell it apart from etabs_list_objects or etabs_select by the delete action and object kinds, though it never names a sibling alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing of three lookup modes (by name, by group, current selection), which tells the agent how to target objects. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over etabs_list_objects/etabs_find_objects for verification, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions.

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