delete_submodel_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Deletes' without explaining irreversible effects, required permissions, error behavior, or whether deletion cascades. The raw HTTP endpoint hint is useful but does not compensate for the missing context.

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 two sentences and includes only the essential operation and endpoint mapping. No filler or redundancy, earning a top score.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and the existence of many sibling delete and submodel-element tools, the description is too thin. It omits response format, failure modes, idempotency, and any relation to the broader API. The endpoint mapping is useful, but for a deletion operation, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description adds the endpoint template that highlights the role of submodel_id and id_short_path, but this is minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Deletes') and the specific resource ('a specific Submodel element') with a precise locator ('by its idShort path'). It also provides the corresponding HTTP endpoint, removing ambiguity and distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_submodel or delete_shell.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only maps to an HTTP DELETE method, which is implicit. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or reasons to avoid this tool (e.g., if a ref deletion is needed instead).

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