delete_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully warns that deleting a boolean without recursive leaves its operands behind, highlighting a non-obvious side effect. However, it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether related objects are affected beyond the stated case, or any authorization requirements. The partial disclosure earns a mid-range score.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the only additional detail (recursive behavior) is provided in a clearly labeled Args section. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given that this is a mutating tool with no annotations, the description should cover key contextual aspects like side effects, return value, and parameter details. It covers the recursive side effect and implies destructiveness, but it omits any mention of the return type (despite an output schema) and leaves the 'document' parameter unexplained. This is adequate for a simple delete operation but has clear gaps.

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%, yet the description only explains the 'recursive' parameter in any depth. The 'name' parameter is self-evident from its name, but 'document' is left ambiguous—it is not described at all, and the schema only lists it as a nullable string. Since the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions for two of three parameters, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 'Delete an object,' which clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (object), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_object, edit_object, or move_object. The additional explanation about recursive deletion further clarifies the tool's primary purpose.

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 when an object needs to be removed, and it provides a specific use case for when the recursive parameter is necessary (e.g., booleans with operands). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance is only implied rather than fully articulated.

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