Delete placed unit(s)

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that units are removed from war3mapUnits.doo and saved to outPath or a default. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., irreversibility) and prerequisites (e.g., map must exist).

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 with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the deletion target, saving behavior, and override option. Minor gaps: no mention of irreversibility or error conditions.

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 covers all parameters, and the description adds value by explaining the select object's usage ('provide at least one field; `type` can match many') and the default behavior for outPath. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 'Remove the unit(s) matched by `select` from war3mapUnits.doo', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wc3_delete_doodad by specifying units.

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 implies usage for deleting units but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context from sibling tools and name provides some guidance.

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