Delete walls, lights and other canvas elements

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds beyond annotations: the pre-validation behavior ('Every id is checked first'), the auth requirement being off by default, and that dryRun reports both what would be deleted and whether it is allowed. This meaningfully expands on the structured data without contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences in total, each earning its place: the core action with constraints, the pre-check behavior, and the permission/dry-run caveat. Slightly denser than ideal (the last sentence packs two ideas into one semicolon-joined clause) but still efficient and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 output schema, this description covers the essential decision factors: scope limits, permission prerequisites, and the dry-run safety option, while the schema documents all parameters. Minor gaps remain (behavior on partially invalid id lists, all-or-nothing vs partial deletion), but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter (ids, dryRun, elementType, sceneIdentifier) already has meaningful text in the schema. The description reinforces some of that (one type per call, dryRun usage, id limits) but adds only marginal extra semantics beyond what the schema states; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Delete up to 200 elements of one type from a scene by id') and adds the key constraints (max 200, single element type). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create-canvas-elements, update-canvas-elements, and list-canvas-elements, and the elementType enum confirms tokens are out of scope (handled by delete-tokens).

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 clear usage context: the 200-element and single-type constraint, the prerequisite permission level ('create, change and delete' for scenes, off by default), and the dryRun preview capability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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