armorpaint_delete_material

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that the final material cannot be deleted. It does not detail side effects on nodes or scene references, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 operation with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose and the key limitation. However, the lack of guidance around material_id semantics and the -1 minimum leaves a visible gap that an agent must resolve elsewhere. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about material_id. The parameter name is self-explanatory, yet the meaning of minimum: -1 is unexplained and could be a sentinel or special value. An agent selecting arguments receives no help with valid id conventions or error conditions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a material.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_material, import_material, select_material, and export_material. The additional constraint about the final material adds precision without ambiguity.

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious and adds an explicit usage constraint: the final material cannot be deleted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling tool performs the same delete-material operation, so the clear context and final-material exclusion provide sufficient guidance.

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