delete_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a destructive mutation but says nothing about reversibility (undo exists as a sibling), cascade effects on dependent features/assemblies, required permissions, or confirmation behavior. For a delete operation this is a significant omission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. It earns its place as a purpose statement but nothing more.

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?

A destructive 2-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage needs substantially more explanation of target identification and consequences. The output schema does relieve the description of return-value detail, but the mutation semantics and parameter meaning remain unexplained.

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 0%, so neither 'doc' nor 'name' is documented structurally. The description only loosely gestures at them ('one object', 'the document') without explaining whether 'name' is an object identifier, whether it is case-sensitive or path-qualified, or how 'doc' is referenced. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'object' are stated, but 'object' is ambiguous in a CAD context (solid body, feature, sketch, face?) and the description gives no differentiation from siblings such as list_objects, object_history, or undo. An agent knows it removes something, but not precisely what class of entity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives — notably undo (which may reverse a deletion) or other modifier tools. No prerequisites, no mention of what happens to dependent features, no exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the verb alone.

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