delete_occurrence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It never states whether removal is permanent, whether dependent constraints/features are affected, or whether it must run inside a transaction, all of which matter for a delete operation.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough to leave behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 not be explained, but for an unannotated destructive tool the description gives no consequences, reversibility, or error conditions. The only real completeness win is the index lookup hint.

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?

Coverage is 50%: the 'instance' parameter is self-documented in the schema, while the required 'index' has no schema description at all. The description partially compensates by pointing to list_occurrences as the source of the index, but adds no format or origin detail beyond that hint.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a component from the assembly'), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_feature or delete_constraint. Minor friction: the name says 'occurrence' while the description says 'component', though the parenthetical tie to list_occurrences bridges that.

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_occurrences for the index' gives a concrete prerequisite for obtaining the required argument, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it says nothing about when not to use it (e.g. versus delete_feature/delete_constraint) or what prerequisites like an active document are needed.

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