delete_component_property

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description confirms it removes a property and sublayer references, refuses VARIANT types, and returns a success object. No contradictions.

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 sentences contain all necessary information without redundancy. Every clause earns its place: types affected, scope, variant exclusion, data source, and return format.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return shape ({ ok, componentId, propertyId, name }). The tool is simple with two parameters, and the description covers how to obtain the IDs and what happens upon deletion.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning about the propertyId format ('name#id, from get_component_api') and the componentId role, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'BOOLEAN / TEXT / INSTANCE_SWAP property from a component and every sublayer reference to it'. It clearly distinguishes from VARIANT properties, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly warns against using this tool for VARIANT properties and directs to delete their variants instead. It also suggests obtaining property ids from get_component_api, but does not name alternative tools for editing or adding properties.

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