Delete BIM Level

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: 'Permanently removes the BIM level. This cannot be undone, and a repeat call returns 404.' It also discloses failure behavior with specific HTTP status codes, which is beyond the annotations and highly useful for an agent.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value: action, precondition, id resolution, permanence, error behavior, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured logically. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 operation with preconditions, error handling, and required parameters, the description covers most key aspects: when deletion is allowed, how to prepare the id, consequences, failure modes, and API endpoint. It does not describe the success response payload (e.g., 204 No Content), which is a minor gap given no output schema exists, but overall it is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 covers both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and instructs to resolve it with the matching list tool, which is a semantic requirement not present in the schema. It also explicitly names the required parameters, reinforcing but not duplicating the schema.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Delete a BIM Level from the system.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_bim_file and delete_bim_model by explicitly naming 'BIM Level' and including the endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/bim_levels/{id}'.

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 provides explicit guidance to resolve the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling, and states when deletion is permitted ('A BIM Level can only be deleted if it is not associated with published models'). It does not name alternative deletion tools as 'use X instead', but the 'matching show or list tool' instruction effectively gives the when/how-to-use context. Error conditions (401, 403, 404) further clarify when the call may fail.

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