object_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states clearly that deletion is 'Irreversible,' which is the most critical behavioral fact for a destructive operation. It also explains the object_type disambiguation behavior. It does not mention side effects like cascading deletion or return values, but the schema already documents the automatic pre-delete save via allow_without_checkpoint.

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 with no filler. The core fact, deletion and irreversibility, is front-loaded, and the disambiguation guidance is a necessary addition that earns its place.

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 full parameter schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, that it is irreversible, and when object_type is needed. It could additionally mention post-conditions or return behavior, but for a destructive delete operation the current level is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving a concrete disambiguation example: 'object_type='Plot' to delete the Plot instead of the Transform.' This clarifies the semantics of the object_type enum in a way the schema alone does not.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an IC-CAP object.' It clearly states the operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling object_delete_children, so some differentiation is left to the tool name 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 gives useful guidance for a specific situation: 'Use object_type to disambiguate when Transform and Plot share the same name.' This is actionable, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like object_delete_children, nor does it state exclusions or when not to use it.

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