delete_object

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 only says 'Delete an object by name' without stating that the operation is destructive, irreversible, or what happens if the object does not exist. It also does not mention potential side effects (e.g., removal of related data). The description is minimal and does not adequately disclose behavior for a mutation tool.

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 a single, short sentence that is immediately readable and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is underspecified; while conciseness is good, it sacrifices necessary context. It earns a mid score because it is compact but lacks important usage and behavioral 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 that output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description does not explain the scope of 'object' (e.g., mesh, light, camera), whether it requires the object to be selected or named exactly, or any consequences of deletion. For a delete operation, the description is incomplete and would leave an agent unsure about what constitutes a valid target.

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% and the description does not elaborate on the 'name' parameter. It does not specify what kind of name (e.g., object name, unique identifier), any format or validation, or how to reference the object. The parameter is left entirely ambiguous, and the description adds almost nothing beyond the schema property label.

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 clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('an object') with the manner ('by name'). It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling deletion tools like delete_collection or delete_material beyond the generic term 'object'; the name itself provides that distinction. The purpose is clear, but it leaves the exact type of object implied.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state the context (e.g., object must exist in the scene), any prerequisites, or when to prefer other deletion tools. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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