delete_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful caveats: deletion only clears inbound wall join references and does not repair geometry. It also documents domain conventions (centimetres, degrees, y downward), which helps an agent understand the project model even though those are not direct parameters.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by caveats and an example. The coordinate-system sentence is mildly tangential to deletion, but it is brief and contextual. Overall, every sentence adds useful context without excessive length.

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 two-parameter deletion tool, the description provides the purpose, a concrete example, and important behavioral limits. It does not explain what happens when the element does not exist or whether deletion is permanent, but the output schema likely covers return behavior, so this is a minor gap.

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. It does clarify that element_id is the identifier and project_path is the .sh3d file path, reinforced by the example call. Still, it does not describe ID formats, path handling, or element types beyond 'editable element,' so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an editable element from a .sh3d project by id.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_elements, add_wall, and validate_project, which perform different actions. The example further anchors the intended use.

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: use this when you need to delete an element by ID. It also gives a when-not by stating it 'does not delete unsupported tags or repai geometry.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when a different tool should be used instead.

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