delete_component_property

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

Given destructiveHint=true, the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it specifies exactly what gets destroyed (property and every sublayer reference) and that it refuses VARIANT properties. It also discloses the return value, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then exclusions and return info. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 object { ok, componentId, propertyId, name }, covers side effects (sublayer references), and explains refusal behavior. This is complete for a destructive tool with two parameters.

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% with descriptive parameter texts, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value by reminding users to obtain property ids from get_component_api, but this is already implied in the schema description for propertyId.

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 clearly states the tool removes BOOLEAN / TEXT / INSTANCE_SWAP properties from a component and all sublayer references, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_component_property or edit_component_property. It also explicitly excludes VARIANT properties, further clarifying its scope.

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?

It provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'VARIANT properties are the variant-set structure — delete their variants instead; this refuses a VARIANT.' It also directs users to get current property ids from get_component_api, which is a clear prerequisite. This is beyond typical guidance and helps the agent choose correctly.

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