world_delete

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 explicitly states that the class is required, radius is clamped, and players are never deleted—critical safety information for a destructive operation. It doesn't mention timeout behavior or what happens to the objects (e.g., permanent deletion), but the core destructive nature and safety guardrails are well disclosed.

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 action, then adds critical constraints in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff, no repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, multi-parameter) and the lack of annotations, the description covers the essential usage and safety aspects. It doesn't explain the 'timeout' parameter or the output schema, but the output schema exists and the description covers the most critical behavioral aspects. A small gap remains on timeout semantics.

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 explains the meaning of 'pos' (defaults to player position when omitted) and 'radius' (clamped), and clarifies that 'class_name' is required. It doesn't explain 'timeout', but the description adds significant value beyond the bare schema for the other three parameters.

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 tool deletes objects of a specific class within a radius, with a clear verb ('Delete'), resource ('every object of class_name'), and scope ('within radius of pos or player'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like world_set or world_action by specifying a destructive, class-filtered deletion operation.

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 explains when to use it (to delete objects of a class) and provides important exclusions: the class is required, radius is clamped, and players are never deleted. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for non-destructive world manipulation, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this is appropriate.

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