proj_delete_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it names the guard condition that aborts the operation and clarifies the critical side effect that the file is closed and detached from the project but not deleted from disk, which tells the agent the action is not fully destructive. It omits permission/auth requirements and any effect on references to the sheet.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the safety condition, then the side-effect clarification — each sentence adds distinct information. The Args/Returns blocks are compact, and although the Returns line is partly redundant with the output schema, it costs little.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is removed, what blocks removal, and what survives on disk. Since an output schema exists, the brief 'Returns' note is sufficient; only preconditions like an open/focused project are unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies the single parameter as a full path and constrains the file type to .SchDoc, meaning beyond the bare 'File Path' string in the schema. It does not specify path format expectations (relative vs absolute beyond 'full') or whether the file must be inside the project directory.

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 specific verb and resource ('Remove a schematic sheet') plus scope ('from the focused project'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling proj_remove_document, so an agent still has to infer which removal path applies.

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 safety check ('refuses to remove the last remaining schematic sheet') gives useful context about when the call will fail, which implies it is intended for projects with multiple sheets. However there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus proj_remove_document or obj_delete, and no prerequisites such as the project needing to be open.

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