borrar_objeto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear the operation is a deletion, but says nothing about irreversibility, undo, confirmation, whether referenced animations or group members are affected, or permission requirements — significant gaps for a destructive 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The trailing parenthetical is slightly cryptic but earns its place by tying the parameters to a known sibling format.

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 4-required-parameter destructive mutation with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits irreversibility, response behavior, and the exact indexing semantics an agent needs to avoid deleting the wrong object.

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%: documento and diapositiva are documented in the schema, while tipo and indice are not. The description partially compensates by pointing to leer_presentacion with detail as the reference for how tipo/índice are defined, but it doesn't state whether índice is per-type or global, or what a group index means.

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: 'Borra un objeto de una diapositiva', which distinguishes it from borrar_diapositiva (whole slide) and mover_objeto. Sibling differentiation is implicit but the object-vs-slide contrast is clear enough for selection.

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 parenthetical points the agent to leer_presentacion 'con detalle' as the source of the tipo/índice pair, which implies a prerequisite workflow. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus mover_objeto, bloquear_objeto, or borrar_diapositiva, and no exclusions are stated.

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