delete_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none: it doesn't say the deletion is irreversible, whether undo exists, whether dependent settings/parts are discarded, or what the response looks like. The word 'Remove' implies mutation, but nothing beyond the obvious is 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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 destructive, one-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description should carry identification format, irreversibility, and side effects. It covers only the bare action.

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?

There is one required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain what 'object' is, yet it only gestures at 'an object'. It does not say whether this is a name, id, index, or handle — a critical ambiguity for a destructive operation.

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 (an object in the project), which is immediately actionable. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours like remove_part, remove_plate or skip_objects, so the agent must infer the scope difference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about whether the object must first be deselected/printable. The agent is left to infer everything about invocation context.

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