ap_material_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers. It explicitly discloses that the operation is irreversible, explains why (no undo/redo binding in ArmorPaint's plugin API), and states the single exception (user pressing Ctrl+Z in the app). This tells the agent exactly what gets destroyed and the consequences, which is precisely the high-value context this dimension rewards.

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 with zero waste. The operative purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by adding the critical irreversibility caveat. Every word contributes to the agent's decision-making.

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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotations tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the target, and the most important behavioral risk. The only meaningful gap is error behavior when the given material name does not exist, which an agent would need to handle failures gracefully.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'name' as 'Material name'; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only marginal meaning by framing name as the lookup key ('by name'), but provides no extra format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema gives.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement, 'Delete a material slot by name,' which precisely identifies the operation and the targeting method. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its material-related siblings (ap_material_create, ap_material_update, ap_material_select, ap_material_list), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when a material slot must be removed, and the irreversibility warning implies caution. However, the description never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use conditions, so guidance on choosing it over sibling tools is left to inference.

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