object_delete_children

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

The description clearly identifies the operation as destructive, and the allow_without_checkpoint parameter description adds meaningful safety context about an automatic pre-delete model save and a warning to proceed with care. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose permanence, recursion behavior, or what happens to dependent references.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

This is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the description does not explain return behavior, whether deletion is direct or recursive, whether types must exactly match, or how the optional object_type disambiguation affects the operation. An agent would need more information to invoke it with full confidence.

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 phrase 'child objects of specified types' helps map object_path to the parent and child_types to the types to delete, which is valuable because those two required parameters have no schema descriptions. Still, object_path is only implicitly defined, and the optional object_type and allow_without_checkpoint are left to the schema, so coverage remains partial.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly names the resource as 'all child objects of specified types'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like object_delete (single object) and object_get_child_objects (read-only retrieval). The intent is immediately 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?

The usage is implied: an agent would use this tool when it needs to delete all children of certain types under an object path. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over object_delete, when not to use it, or what conditions make it inappropriate. The context is inferable but not directly stated.

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