delete_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful detail about Camera/LiDAR-specific verified lifecycle teardown and the ignored post_delete_updates behavior for ordinary prims. However, it does not clarify permanence, cascading effects on child prims, or what 'verified teardown' actually entails, leaving some important behavioral aspects vague.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise argument notes. There is minor redundancy between the opening 'Camera/LiDAR use verified lifecycle teardown' and the post_delete_updates explanation, but overall it is appropriately sized and skimmable.

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?

For a simple delete-by-prim-path tool, the description covers the required parameter and the one behaviorally important optional parameter. Yet it omits any context around command_id and idempotency_key, does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling delete tools, and could clarify destructive scope. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required, but the remaining gaps keep this from being fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document prim_path and post_delete_updates with meaningful semantics, including the 1-240 range and the ordinary-prim caveat. However, command_id and idempotency_key are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and description, which is a clear gap for two of the four parameters.

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 specific action ('Delete an object') and identifies the target via 'prim_path', making it clear this operates on scene prims. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling delete tools such as delete_artifact or delete_human; the reader must infer the intended domain from 'prim_path'.

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 some usage context by explaining that Camera/LiDAR objects use verified lifecycle teardown and that post_delete_updates is ignored for ordinary prims. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like delete_artifact, delete_human, or clear_scene, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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