object-delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose the destructive nature and system behavior (e.g., irreversible, affects data, may fail on linked objects). The description only says 'delete', which is redundant with the name and lacks detail on consequences.

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 short but severely under-specified; it does not earn its place by adding any value beyond the name. There is no structure or front-loading of essential 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 operation with one required parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to mention what happens to selected objects, whether undo is available, or any relationship with outliner or scene context.

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 schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero parameter details. The single 'objects' parameter expects comma-separated names, but the description does not clarify format, syntax, or how errors are handled, leaving the agent without critical input guidance.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (objects), distinguishing it from close siblings like mesh-delete and object-duplicate. It covers the scope (one or more), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mesh-delete or outliner-orphans_purge. It does not mention prerequisites, effect on linked data, or any caveats for collective deletion.

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