drawing_delete

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the basic fact of deletion. With no annotations, it fails to disclose important traits like whether deletion is irreversible, cascading effects, or authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 only three words, which is too minimal. While concise, it omits essential information. The lack of structure (e.g., no sentences beyond the single phrase) hinders usability.

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?

Given the tool complexity (delete operation with two parameters, output schema present), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or context. The output schema exists but the description should complement it.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameters (drawing_id, project_id). It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 'Delete a drawing' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like drawing_create and drawing_update, but does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools (e.g., acl_delete, node_delete). The verb 'delete' and resource 'drawing' are specific enough.

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. For instance, there are other delete tools in the sibling list, and the description does not specify prerequisites or context for deletion.

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