Delete an instance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat destructiveness. However, it adds no additional behavioral context—such as irreversibility, effects on sub-assemblies, or required permissions—beyond what the annotation provides. It also leaves ambiguity about the scope of the deletion (e.g., does it cascade to child instances?).

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 that directly states the action and target. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 simple delete operation with all parameters fully described in the schema, the description provides sufficient context—the action and the key identifier. It does not explain return values or error handling, but no output schema exists, and the description clarifies that the node is an occurrence node id, which is the critical detail. It is adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (doc, ws, elem, node) with full coverage. The description reiterates the role of 'node' (occurrence node id) but adds no syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('instance from an assembly'), and the key input ('occurrence node id'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling delete tools like onshape_delete_feature or onshape_delete_document, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'assembly', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_feature for features, delete_document for documents). An agent must infer the appropriate scenario from the name and context rather than receiving direct routing guidance.

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