delete_shapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting connected shapes). It also omits details on response format or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential 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?

Given the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like permanence of deletion, error scenarios (e.g., invalid IDs), or impact on related elements (e.g., connections in sibling tools). For a mutation tool, this leaves too many unknowns for safe and effective use.

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%, with the parameter 'ids' clearly documented as 'Shape IDs to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format, constraints, or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but there's no extra value from the description.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('shapes from the canvas'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_canvas' (which might delete all shapes) or 'update_shape' (which modifies rather than deletes), leaving room for improvement in distinguishing from alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clear_canvas' (for bulk deletion) or 'update_shape' (for modifications). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, such as whether shapes must exist or be selected first, making usage context unclear.

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