cst_delete_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deleting results prevents a disruptive dialog, which is a key behavioral trait. It implies destructiveness (deletion) and automation impact. More detail on persistence or side effects would push it higher, but it's sufficient for a one-action tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and primary effect; the second provides context. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and the behavioral outcome. Nothing essential is missing. The context (automation, model modification) is fully addressed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description doesn't need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no information missing.

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 it deletes simulation results from the current CST project and explicitly explains the purpose: to prevent the 'Results May Get Incompatible With Model' dialog that blocks automation. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (e.g., cst_delete_material, cst_delete_port) by specifying the resource and context.

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 guidance: 'Call before making parameter or geometry changes on a project that has been solved.' It tells exactly when to invoke the tool. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is adequately clear, earning a 4.

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