silhouette_delete_design

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the cascading scope of delete_files=true — that exported .dxf, .svg and .png artifacts are also removed — which an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of stating whether the design itself is recoverable or whether the design must be closed first.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional side effect immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential side effect but omits how the design is identified and whether the operation is reversible or fails when the design is open. Adequate but not complete for a destructive mutation.

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 carries the parameter burden. It does explain delete_files concretely (also deletes exported .dxf/.svg/.png files), but the required 'design' parameter is left uncharacterized — no indication whether it is a name, path, or identifier, or how it is resolved.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a design file'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like silhouette_remove_shape (removes a shape) or silhouette_clear_shapes. No sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the resource noun rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: call this when a design file should be removed. There is no guidance on when to prefer remove_shape or clear_shapes instead, no confirmation/permission prerequisite, and no warning about irreversibility beyond what the annotations already signal.

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