Remove solid operation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: it deletes relationships, not the elements themselves (links are 'operation links'), and reports per-link success or error plus removedCount, implying partial failures are possible.

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. The return-shape sentence is dense but informative; nothing is redundant, though the inline JSON union could be trimmed.

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, so the description usefully inlines the return shape (results array with removed/error, removedCount). With both parameters covered and the destructive nature disclosed, an agent has what it needs to call it; only prerequisite/auth details (e.g. teamwork reservations) are absent.

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 50%, and the description compensates meaningfully by defining what `elements` does (removes every link where the element is target OR operator) — a semantic the schema does not spell out. It also names the target/operator pair for `links`. It doesn't add GUID format or limit details, which the schema carries.

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 (Removes) plus a precise resource (live solid element operation links) and even names the origins (created by solid_operation or in Archicad). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like solid_operation, get_element_edit_relations, and delete_elements 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?

Explains the two input modes and when each applies: pass `links` [{target, operator}] for explicit pairs, `elements` for every link where the element is target or operator. It also routes inspection to get_element_edit_relations. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite (e.g. reservation) guidance, so not a full 5.

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