Delete attributes

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

Annotations only declare destructive/non-idempotent; the description adds the deeper traits that matter: single undo step, automatic reassignment of elements using a deleted attribute, the full cascade when deleting a layer, and the refusal semantics. This is genuinely additive context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the destructive warning is capitalized and prominent, and the return shape closes the definition. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every sentence carries operational information rather than filler.

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, multi-param tool with no output schema, it covers the return format inline, the refusal conditions, the force override, and the post-deletion side effects. An agent has everything needed to call it safely without further lookup.

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 coverage is 75% and already documents type and force, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying force to the layer cascade and the modify_elements remediation, and by naming the accepted attribute identifiers (name/index/guid). Only undoName receives no explanation anywhere.

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+resource ('Deletes attributes of one type') and immediately scopes it ('one undo step'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling element deletions like delete_elements or delete_stories without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use for force ('layers that still hold elements'), the precondition to satisfy first ('move elements with modify_elements'), and the exclusion set (pens, fonts, Archicad layer, last-of-type, Solid/Empty fills, line type 1). Alternative routing is spelled out rather than inferred.

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