delete_sensor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is destructive, includes a verification step, and explains the purpose of post_delete_updates for detecting delayed reappearance of prims or render products. It does not discuss permissions or irreversibility, but those are largely implied by 'delete'.

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 only a few sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by compact parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 destructive delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, verification behavior, target resource type, and the key tuning parameter. The main gaps are undocumented generic parameters and explicit routing to alternatives, but the core call is well specified.

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 meaningfully explains prim_path and post_delete_updates, including the range 1–240 and why updates are needed. However, command_id and idempotency_key are left undocumented, and with zero schema descriptions an agent gets no help on those 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 concrete action ('Release and delete'), a specific resource ('one Camera or LiDAR'), and a verification step ('then verify it stays absent'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic deleters like delete_object or delete_artifact without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'Managed Camera or LiDAR prim path' implies the tool is intended for managed sensors, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over delete_object or how to handle non-managed prims. Usage context is implied, not stated as a rule or alternative.

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