object.delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the approval requirement, the client cannot self-approve, and the retry behavior with the same request id. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the interaction flow, though it does not detail the consequences of deletion.

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 brief and front-loaded with the command name and risk level. It uses two sentences to convey risk, maturity, approval, and retry, with no wasted words. However, it omits the core purpose, which makes it efficient but incomplete. Structure is clean, but content prioritizes meta information over function.

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 tool with no annotations beyond destructiveHint, the description should explain what happens on deletion, whether it is permanent, and any side effects. It does not address these. It also fails to clarify the retry mechanism in depth or the role of the output schema. With 6 parameters and only 50% schema coverage, the description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It does not mention 'name', 'objectId', '_requestId', '_authorization', '_transactionId', or '_expectedSceneRevision', leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters, so it fails to help with the low coverage.

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 identifies the tool as the 'object.delete' command but never explicitly states that it deletes an object. It focuses on risk, maturity, and approval flow rather than the core function, leaving the agent to infer the purpose from the name. This is closer to a restatement of the name than a clear functional specification.

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 mentions that local user approval is required and that a client cannot approve its own request, which is a usage constraint. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_object_duplicate or blender_object_rename, nor any exclusions based on state or dependencies. The 'per-request argument checks' note is generic and does not help select this tool.

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