Delete placed drawings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them - undoing counts as a single step, source views remain intact, and the exact return shape [{guid, deleted} | {error}] 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the side-effect guarantee and the return contract; nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its layout scope, the non-effect on source views, undo granularity, and the return shape - an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters (drawings array with GUID/object forms, undoName) are already documented in the schema; the 'one undo step' phrase loosely signals the undoName behavior but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes drawing elements from layouts') and scopes it away from model elements via 'from layouts' plus 'The source views are not touched', which separates it from the many delete_* siblings (delete_elements, delete_hotlinks) without opening their schemas.

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 only implied: 'drawing elements from layouts' hints at the context, and the schema points at get_layout_drawings for the GUIDs, but the description never states when to choose this over delete_elements or modify_drawings, nor any prerequisite for obtaining the drawings first.

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