Delete objects

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the cascade — everything depending on the deleted objects is deleted too — and points at usedBy in ggb_get_state as the way to preview the blast radius. It stops short of stating reversibility (ggb_undo exists as a sibling) or what a partial/failed delete reports.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive caveat before the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information: action, cascade consequence, and the correct path for modification. No filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is destroyed beyond the named objects and what to use instead. Gaps are the accept/reject behavior for unknown names and whether the operation can be reversed via ggb_undo.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'names', with 0% schema description coverage and no enum guidance. The description never explains that names are object labels matching those returned by ggb_get_state/ggb_screenshot — it only alludes to 'objects' and usedBy, which is too indirect to compensate for the complete absence of schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete objects') and immediately scopes the action by noting that dependents are removed as well. It also names the sibling it is not (ggb_run_commands for redefinition), so an agent can separate it from ggb_run_commands and ggb_clear without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative with a condition: to *change* an object, use ggb_run_commands instead of deleting and recreating. It also routes the agent to ggb_get_state's usedBy data before deleting. It does not address how this differs from a bulk wipe like ggb_clear, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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