delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: with_children=true cascades to parented objects, otherwise children are unparented and returned in the answer as `unparented`, plus the checkpoint recommendation. It does not mention irreversibility beyond the checkpoint hint, so not a full 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, then selectors, then child behavior, then the alternative. Dense but every clause carries information. Slightly sprawling with parentheticals, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description partially covers returns (children reported as `unparented`). Selector requirements, cascade behavior, and the sibling alternative are all present, leaving only return-format details thin for a destructive, multi-mode tool.

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 carry all four parameters — and it does: `names`, `prefix` with a concrete example ('bl_light_' removes setup_lighting), `lights` with both enum values explained (added = lights made by add_light, all = every light), and `with_children` semantics. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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+resource ('Delete whole objects') and explicitly distinguishes the scope from the sibling delete_faces ('Use delete_faces to remove a part of a mesh'). An agent can tell which deletion tool to pick 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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it (partial mesh deletion -> delete_faces), and gives a prerequisite/when-to-use caution ('Take a checkpoint first if you are not sure'). It also states the selector requirement (at least one of names/prefix/lights), which is real routing guidance.

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