Delete elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: one undo step restores, dependent elements (openings of walls, associative dimensions/labels, curtain wall/stair/railing sub-elements) are cascade-deleted by Archicad, and group GUIDs delete entire groups. This is exactly the extra destructive-behavior context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action and undo guarantee, then packs cascades, group semantics, and the return shape into a dense block. Slightly run-on with the inline return-type listing, but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return shape (results with deleted/error, deletedCount, alsoDeleted, subElementsDeleted, warnings) and explains cascade and group behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this destructive tool 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 the schema already documents both `elements` (GUID strings or {guid}, group GUID = whole group) and `includeGroupMembers`. The description's group-GUID note largely repeats the schema, and it adds no syntax detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 and immediately scopes it ("Deletes elements of ANY type"), which distinguishes it from the many typed deletion siblings like delete_stories, delete_drawings, delete_attributes. The group-GUID behavior further pins down the tool's coverage.

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 a real usage constraint ("Only delete elements you created or were asked to delete") and notes the one-undo-step reversibility, which informs risk. It does not name alternatives (e.g. ungroup/undo) or state when not to use it beyond the caution, so it stops short of a 5.

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