delete_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it does not mention irreversibility, behavior with child objects, or any side effects on the study or geometry. The with_children parameter is entirely ignored.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the core purpose, though its extreme brevity does sacrifice necessary detail. This is genuine conciseness rather than padding.

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 destructive nature of the tool, the presence of a boolean parameter with_children, and the lack of annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits essential context about deletion scope, safety, and return behavior. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the agent is left without enough information to use the tool correctly in many scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only hints at object_ref via 'by entry/name', but with_children is completely unexplained, leaving its meaning and default behavior (true) opaque. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'GEOM study object' with reference method 'by entry/name', making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like copy_object or rename_object, and requires no guessing about the operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives or under what conditions deletion is appropriate. The description lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context about irreversible consequences, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and siblings.

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