delete_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it. It never says whether the deletion is permanent, undoable, or transactional, what happens with an invalid or out-of-range index, or whether the model must be in a specific state. Only the index provenance hint adds context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the key scoping information first. Its brevity is efficient rather than bloated, though it leaves the definition under-specified for a destructive operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 2-parameter destructive operation with zero annotations the description should cover irreversibility, permission/connection requirements, and error behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at the consequences of calling it.

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 50%: the 'instance' parameter is documented in the schema but 'index' has no description there. The description partially compensates by tying index to list_constraints and scoping it to assembly constraints, though it does not say whether the index is 0- or 1-based or relative to the listing order.

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 and resource ("Delete an assembly constraint") plus the addressing scheme ("by index"), which separates it from delete_feature and delete_occurrence by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, but the resource noun is 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 parenthetical "(see list_constraints)" gives implied guidance on how to obtain a valid index, which is a real routing hint. There is no statement of when to prefer this over suppress_feature or delete_occurrence, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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