delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect of with_children=false (children lose their parent and are reported as `unparented`), the scope expansion of prefix, and the risk mitigation via checkpoint. It stops short of stating reversibility/undo semantics or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the checkpoint warning, then dense parameter semantics with a worked example, and closes with the sibling routing. No sentence is 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers selectors, cascading behavior, the returned `unparented` list, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly is missing.

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 and it does: it explains that at least one of names/prefix/lights is required, defines prefix with a concrete example ('bl_light_' removes setup_lighting), enumerates the lights values (added vs all), and explains with_children. All four undocumented parameters are given meaning beyond their names.

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 and resource ('Delete whole objects') and immediately draws the boundary against the sibling delete_faces ('Use delete_faces to remove a part of a mesh'). An agent can distinguish this tool from the mesh-face deleter without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (delete_faces) and the condition selecting it, tells the agent at least one selector must be supplied, and adds a prerequisite-style warning ('Take a checkpoint first if you are not sure'). When-to-use, requirement, and alternative are all covered.

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