Delete an assembly feature

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, so the description isn't required to establish that this mutates state. It does add genuinely new behavioral information beyond the annotation: "Relations on a deleted mate stop solving," which discloses a cross-entity side effect an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of addressing irreversibility/undo or permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the scope list comes first and the side-effect caveat second. Nothing is redundant with the title or restates the tool name.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is removed and one downstream consequence, with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering all inputs. However, it omits whether deletion is permanent/undoable and whether dependent mates or instances are also affected — meaningful gaps for a delete tool.

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% (all four params, including URL-segment guidance for doc/ws/elem and the meaning of feature_id), so the schema fully carries parameter semantics and the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already explains.

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 ("Remove") and enumerates the exact resource types it operates on (mate, mate connector, group, relation), which makes clear this is an assembly-level deletion rather than a part-studio feature deletion. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like onshape_delete_feature or onshape_delete_element, but the entity list does most of that work implicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the entity list — an agent can infer this is the tool for removing assembly mates/groups/relations, but there is no explicit "use this when…" or exclusion against onshape_delete_feature, onshape_delete_instance, or onshape_update_assembly_feature. No preconditions (e.g., mate must exist, assembly must not be locked) are stated.

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