delete_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this tool is destructive (deletes geometry), what happens to the geometry, or any side effects. It does not even confirm the deletion behavior implied by the name.

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 extremely short, but that is due to under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no structural benefit; the single line is essentially a parameter value list with no introduction or context. It fails to earn its place as a description.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema explanation (output schema exists but is not referenced), and a parameter that requires interpretation, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without guessing what the types mean and what the tool does.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'type' with a default but no enum, and 0% schema description coverage. The description lists five possible values (VERT, EDGE, FACE, ONLY_FACE, EDGE_FACE) which provides the distinct enum values. However, it does not explain what each type means or how they affect the deletion, so it adds only minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'type: VERT, EDGE, FACE, ONLY_FACE, EDGE_FACE' only lists possible values for a parameter. It does not state what the tool does, what resource it acts on, or how it differs from any sibling tool. This is a tautology that restates the parameter values without explaining the action 'delete_geometry'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer alternatives. The description offers no context for selecting this tool over the many sibling tools like 'delete_object' or 'delete_material'.

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