delete-walls

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: GM-only authorization, non-fatal missing IDs, and the destructive nature (deleting walls). It could add details about irreversibility or response, but for a simple tool this is adequate.

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 efficient sentence with three clear clauses covering purpose, example, error handling, and authorization. No wasted words.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers operation, error handling, and authorization. It lacks mention of prerequisites (scene/wall existence) or permanence, but the example and GM-only note provide reasonable completeness.

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 schema already describes both parameters. The description adds the example context but no new semantic details beyond reinforcing the IDs source and scene identifier purpose.

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 clearly states it deletes walls by ID from a scene, provides a concrete example ('open up a sealed passage'), and references the source tool ('list-walls'). This distinguishes it from other deletion tools among siblings.

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?

It indicates when to use (delete walls), who can use it ('GM-only'), and error handling ('missing ids reported, never fatal'). Though it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context of 'by id from list-walls' implies a prerequisite, and the sibling list shows other delete tools.

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