remove_plate

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key data-loss semantics: objects on the plate are relocated to another plate rather than silently destroyed. It omits whether the deletion is reversible/undoable, permission requirements, or edge cases such as deleting the last remaining plate.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the side effect that matters most. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential risk (where objects go) and the tricky default value. A short note on irreversibility or return value would close the remaining 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, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: it explains what `move_objects_to` controls and the important `0` sentinel meaning objects are deleted too. `plate` is left unexplained, but its meaning is inferable from the tool purpose.

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 and resource ("Delete a plate") and immediately adds the consequence for contained objects, which distinguishes it from add_plate/rename_plate/set_plate_settings. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling mutation tools like delete_object, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb; an agent knows this is the tool for removing a plate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and it never mentions the related delete_object sibling, so an agent has to infer whether per-object deletion is an alternative.

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