xoa_doi_tuong

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It says an object is removed but discloses nothing about irreversibility, undo behavior, failure when the name does not exist, or whether dependent geometry is affected.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is not sufficient. An agent cannot tell what happens on success or failure, or what safety constraints apply.

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?

The single parameter 'ten' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what 'ten' is (object name, handle, or ID) or its expected format. With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 description states a specific verb and resource ('xoa mot doi tuong' = delete an object) with scope ('khoi canh' = from the scene), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as xoa_toan_bo (delete everything) or sua_doi_tuong (edit object), so it stops short of a 5.

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 tool versus alternatives like xoa_toan_bo or sua_doi_tuong, and no stated prerequisites such as the target object needing to exist first. The agent must infer all routing on its own.

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