delete_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention that deleting a block deletes its parts, which is a useful side-effect. However, it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or requires permissions, nor does it describe error handling or effects on dependent objects (e.g., dimensions, texts). The description carries minimal burden but falls short.

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 one sentence, efficient and free of fluff. The key detail about blocks is front-loaded in the parenthetical. It is appropriately concise for its purpose.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the tool is a destructive operation (delete) and lacks annotations to communicate safety. The description should provide more context about irreversible consequences, prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), and interaction with nested objects (only blocks are mentioned). It is adequate but minimal for a mutation tool.

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 one parameter (names) with no description coverage (0%). The description does not explain what 'names' refers to (object names? layer names?) or how to specify multiple objects. However, with only one simple array parameter, the risk is low. The description adds a hint about blocks, but it does not clarify the parameter format. Given the simplicity, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('objects'), and it adds a clarifying detail about block deletion cascading to parts. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like move_object, copy_object, or clear_3d, which are also mutation tools. The parenthetical is useful but the core purpose is generic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, sibling tools like clear_3d (clear the 3D view) and get_objects (query objects) exist, but the description does not clarify that this tool is for removing objects from the model, not clearing the view or other operations. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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