delete_material

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates deletion and unlinking, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the material data block is permanently removed, whether the operation is reversible, or how it affects other objects using the same material. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 deletion/unlink tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavioral difference between unlink_only true and false in terms of consequences, nor does it mention what happens to the material data block. An agent needs this context to call the tool correctly and avoid unintended data loss.

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 for both parameters. The unlink_only parameter is partially explained by the phrase 'or just unlink from object', which adds meaning. The name parameter is self-explanatory from its name and required status, but the description does not explicitly clarify it. Overall, it adds some value but not comprehensive semantics.

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 primary action is deleting a material, and clarifies an optional unlink-only behavior. It distinguishes between full deletion and unlinking, which helps an agent understand the core functionality. However, it does not explicitly specify the scope (e.g., from the entire file vs. from an object), and it doesn't reference sibling tools to aid differentiation.

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 implies usage by stating the action, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like assign_material or unlink_nodes. It mentions the unlink_only option, which hints at a use case (removing from object without deleting), but does not state when to prefer this over other material operations.

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