Delete a building

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

Description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses server-side soft deletion, that a human can undo it, that this tool itself cannot undo it, and that token spend is not refunded. It also details exactly what is affected (all sub-resources), which is more informative than the raw destructiveHint flag alone.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, followed by necessary caveats. No fluff or repetition. Slightly more elaborate than the bare minimum, but each detail earns its place by clarifying material consequences of the operation.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what gets deleted, whether it is reversible, who can reverse it, and whether consumer tokens are lost. Nothing that an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or to anticipate its side effects is missing.

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 0% and the description offers no additional meaning for building_id; it only repeats the concept of deleting a building. The tool never explains where to obtain building_id or whether it refers to an internal identifier, job-related ID, or app-facing ID. This is a gap because the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics and does not compensate beyond the self-explanatory name.

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 (delete) and resource (building) and defines the scope with an explicit list of all deleted sub-resources: photos, designs, renders, estimates, albums. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_render or delete_design, which handle a single sub-resource, and makes the cascade behavior explicit.

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 clear context on what the operation entails, such as soft deletion and non-refundability, so an agent can infer when to use it for bulk building removal. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternatives, like use delete_design for just a design. The guidance is implied through the enumerations of sub-resources and sibling names, not stated directly.

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