delete_material

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

With destructiveHint already declared true, the description adds meaningful context beyond the annotation: the confirm requirement and the fact that it affects all object slots. This enriches the agent's understanding of the operation's side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action first and the key requirement (confirm) and side effect (removes from slots) stated efficiently. 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?

The description covers the essential destructive behavior and confirm requirement, but omits details such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the material does not exist) and the exact return value, even though an output schema exists. It is adequate but leaves some edge cases unaddressed.

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 only mentions the confirm parameter implicitly ('Confirm required') and says nothing about the 'name' parameter beyond its obvious purpose. Given zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap; the agent cannot infer parameter formats or constraints from the description.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Delete a material') and adds a distinctive behavior ('Removes from all object slots') that separates it from sibling tools like remove_material. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as remove_material, but it does provide an important usage constraint ('Confirm required') that tells the agent a boolean must be set to true to proceed. This is helpful but not a full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guide.

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