delete_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a critical behavioral trait: deleting a parent feature cascades to all dependents. It also notes that the response lists every removed feature. However, it omits whether the deletion is reversible (e.g., via undo), which is important for a destructive operation.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the cascade consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, though it helpfully notes the response lists all deleted features. It covers the essential cascade behavior but could be more complete by mentioning undoability or prerequisites for a destructive tool with no annotations.

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 100% and the single parameter is well documented with examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('feature or sketch from the active model'), making it clearly distinct from siblings like suppress_feature or rename_feature. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or contrasting behaviors, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suppress_feature, which also removes a feature from view but does not delete it. The description simply says what it does without helping the agent choose.

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